Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 19th April, 1962, for the Easter Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [Lords]

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

UNIVERSITY OF KEELE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Yemenis

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately how many Yemenis are now resident in Aden Colony: what is the annual influx of Yemenis into the Colony; how many Yemenis are out-patients at Aden hospitals or clinics and how many are inpatients; the number respectively of Yemeni and non-Yemeni young women who are Aden hospital nurses or student nurses; and whether Yemenis are permitted to settle in the Protectorates.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Approximately 80,000. The numbers coming in and going out annually are unknown, since there is no immigration control. No statistics are kept of outpatients by nationality. It is estimated that approximately 30 per cent. of inpatients are Yemenis. There are no Yemeni nurses or student nurses. Non-Yemeni female nursing staff totals 201. The answer to the final point is "Yes".

I apologise for the portmanteau method of reply, but it was a portmanteau Question.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the shortage of nurses and the large number of Yemenis who take advantage of hospital service in Aden, has anything been done to suggest to the Crown Prince or the Imam that more women in that area might be trained at Aden hospitals? Can the hon. Gentleman also say what steps are being taken to secure more Adenese women for this purpose?

Mr. Fraser: I should like to look into that. At the moment the nursing staff tends to be male rather than female. This is because of local conditions. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Dr. Stross: Can the Minister tell us whether there is a sufficient number of beds for the treatment of tuberculosis in Aden? Does he remember that about ten years ago there was a great improvement both in the scope for treating the disease and in the quality of treatment? Has this improvement been maintained?

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I shall be happy to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH BORNEO

Paracholera

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will give the number of cases of paracholera reported in North Borneo in the first three months of 1962, and the number of people who have died from this disease in the same period;

(2) if he will give the number of people in North Borneo who have been inoculated against paracholera during the first three months of 1962.

Mr. H. Fraser: There were 39 confirmed cases and five deaths. A further 89 deaths were probably due to paracholera. Two hundred and forty-seven thousand people were inoculated.

Mr. Goodhew: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the medical authorities in Borneo are to be congratulated on the way in which this outbreak is being contained, and can he tell the House


whether they will be represented at the talks which are to take place shortly on this subject in Manila at the instigation of the World Health Organisation?

Mr. Fraser: I certainly re-echo my hon. Friend's remarks about the efficiency of this system. Of course, there will, we hope, be booster doses over the next six months to make certain that as far as possible this epidemic will continue to be contained. As far as the Manila Conference is concerned, I will certainly bear it in mind and will write to my on. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Federation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the basis and scale of compensation for those affected by the impending dissolution of the West Indies Federation have been modified in any way; and what are the categories of recipients.

Mr. H. Fraser: The matter is still under discussion and I have no further statement to make at this stage.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the heartburning and misunderstanding which there have been on this matter, is progress being made towards a mutually satisfactory settlement?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am fairly confident of the outcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

National Library

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Works when the National Library building will be available for use.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): The plans for a new building for the British Museum Library are not sufficiently far advanced for any date to be given.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right bon. Gentleman realise that this building will provide room for books which presently are housed in the British Museum at the expense of some of our greatest masterpieces which cannot be shown to the

public because of lack of viewing space in the museum? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of getting on more quickly with the provision of space for these books which are now in the museum?

Lord John Hope: Yes, indeed. No time has been lost, but this is bound to be rather a long job.

Mr. Rankin: When the right hon. Gentleman gives a depressing answer like that, can he define the length of "long"?

Lord John Hope: I cannot, but I hope soon to be in a position to announce the appointment of an architect.

Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)

Sir J. Longford-Holt: asked the Minister of Works what is the cost of maintaining the barricades on the Horse Guards Parade; and what is the cost of maintaining a permanent attendant to ensure that only those so privileged may use the Horse Guards Parade as a free car park.

Lord John Hope: The annual cost of the barriers is about £80 and the wages of the staff £1,440.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: As it is wrong that a public place like this should be fenced for the benefit of a few, will my right hon. Friend look into this whole question again, if to do nothing else than to save my continuing putting down Questions about it?

Lord John Hope: My hon. Friend is not accurate in saying that this is a public place. It is part of a Royal Park. On the question of expenditure, as I have pointed out to my hon. Friend before, what one is trying to do, and what one has to weigh in the balance, is to save the surface.

Mr. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what royal authority this particular place is preserved for a privileged few when the great majority of people need it? Considering the need for parking space in London, is not the argument about preserving this surface by not having cars parked there fatuous?

Lord John Hope: No it is not fatuous, because if Horse Guards Parade were thrown open to public parking all the time it would certainly be impossible to preserve the same type of surface. We would have to go to the bard macadamised type of surface.

Bernera Bridge, Isle of Lewis

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Works whether he will take steps to prevent the formation of standing stones above the bridge at Bernera, Isle of Lewis, being lost through the erosion of the supporting cliff.

Lord John Hope: No, Sir. There are many standing stones in Scotland and these particular stones have not been listed under the Ancient Monuments Acts as monuments whose preservation is of national importance.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread feeling that these stones should have been listed as such a monument? Is the Minister aware that they overlook one of the most beautiful seascapes in the Western Isles, and are of considerable archaeological and tourist interest to people who visit the islands? Will he reconsider at least trying to save what can be saved before they go into the sea?

Lord John Hope: It is the archaeological quality of the stones that is the point here. The expert advice is as I have quoted it to the hon. Gentleman, and I am not prepared to go against that.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Western Isles

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are now being taken to overcome any technical or other difficulties affecting the provision of television in Barra, the Uists area and Harris in the Western Isles.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The B.B.C. says that it cannot plan further stations for the Western Isles until the stations my right hon. Friend has already authorised for Lewis and Skye are working and their effective range can be established. The B.B.C. hopes to open these stations by the middle of 1964.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Lady aware that the question is really whether the Government will try now to eliminate as far as possible technical and other snags which will face the B.B.C. and others concerned when they get to these new phases of development? Will the Government try now to short-circuit—if that is the right word to use here—as far as possible the delays which arose in earlier phases in the Western Isles and Highlands?

Miss Pike: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing that. Since he raised this matter in the recent debate I have looked into it, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that this question is uppermost in our planning.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Leasehold Laws, South Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has now received the evidence he sought from the professional bodies concerned in South Wales concerning the operation of the current leasehold laws; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): I have received reports from three out of the four bodies consulted, and I hope to have the fourth very shortly. I intend to publish a summary of the four reports as quickly as I can.

Mr. Thomas: Does this mean that we can look forward to an early decision by the Minister to set free owner-occupiers who are at present being held to ransom by ground landlords? Is the Minister aware that there is a growing impatience in Wales with the length of time that he is taking to collect his evidence? He has already had about six months in which to collect it.

Dr. Hill: It means, as I have said, that the report of the four experts, or rather the report on their reports, will be published, and thereafter the Government will reach a decision.

Mr. Thomas: Can the Minister indicate to owner-occupiers how long they


are likely to have to wait, because important decisions have to be taken by them whether to renew leases under blackmail terms or not? How long will they have to wait before the Government make it clear whether they are going to do something or not?

Dr. Hill: I cannot add to the Answer that I have given.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the Minister aware that this matter has been bandied across the Floor of the House for many years? In the last four or five years many promises have been given by right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite. In view of the urgency of this question, especially in the older industrial parts of South Wales, will the right hon. Gentlemen do all that he can to expedite a final statement on the position?

Dr. Hill: In due course a statement of the Government's conclusion will be made. In the meantime I am informing the House of the impending publication of the experts' report.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many improvement grants for installing bathrooms and other amenities have been made in the last twelve months; of this total, how many were for owner-occupied houses and how many for those owned by private landlords; and how many were made since landlords were allowed to increase their rents by a further 4½ per cent. of their share of the cost, on 25th November, 1961.

Dr. Hill: 120,965 grants of all kinds were approved in the twelve months ending 31st March, 1962. 58,196 of these were for owner-occupied dwellings, 24,687 for privately rented dwellings. Between 1st December, 1961, and 31st March, 1962, 31,342 grants of all kinds were approved, of which 12,937 were for owner-occupied and 7,073 for privately rented dwellings.

Mr. Allaun: Is not that a shocking record of failure? Is not the Minister now admitting that only 7,000 landlords have bothered to take advantage of these new and increasingly generous grants?

Is he aware that because of this many local authorities are convinced that only compulsory measures will force the landlords to take advantage of the extremely generous Government grants—as opposed to owner-occupiers, who are sensibly making use of them?

Dr. Hill: As the hon. Member will appreciate, the 7,000 figure refers to a four months' period. I am not satisfied with the position, but it is some comfort to know that in the last four months the ratio of grants in respect of landlords' property to privately owned property has risen from 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. I do not pretend to be satisfied with the position, and I am considering other ways of securing a greater number of improvements and more conversions.

Mrs. Slater: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what other ways he is considering? This problem has existed for several years, and it is essential that landlords should improve their properties if these houses are to be preserved and prevented from becoming slums.

Dr. Hill: One of the other ways I am considering is to advise local authorities to take selected areas and, through a concerted campaign, to seek to secure that the necessary improvements are carried out. It is no use speaking of compulsion, when many tenants do not wish to give up, say, a room for a bathroom, or do not wish to pay the additional rent. The resistances are not all on one side.

Mr. Allaun: Persuasion and publicity in a concentrated form may be useful, but experience has shown that something more is needed. Although we had 11,000 people visiting three houses in Salford in a period of three weeks, only seven landlords in the whole city decided to take advantage of it.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member must not forget the measure of success that has been achieved in the increase from 30,000 to 120,000 over the last three years. But I do not pretend to be satisfied with the number of improvements and conversions, bearing in mind the large mass of older property which exists.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Interest Rates

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the cost to a local authority of borrowing £100,000 and repaying it over a 60-year period at the current interest rates for each of the years from 1951 to 1961.

Dr. Hill: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister confirm or deny that on average the figures have gone up 300 to 400 per cent.? If that is so, is it not due entirely to Government policy that interest rates have risen and, because of this, local authority rates have risen, as has the cost of administering local authority services and the cost of houses? All this is contrary to the Government's promises and pledges and the desire of the Government to keep down the cost of living. Can the Minister say what he will do to reduce interest rates and help ordinary people?

Dr. Hill: The rise in interest rates has been necessary to keep the economy on an even keel, and local authorities cannot be insulated from that increase.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the economy had not been on an even keel, and that over the last few months and years we have had one economic crisis after another? The Government have admitted that, and yet we have these high interest rates which they introduced. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that with these high interest rates we have an economic crisis, which does not match up with what he just said?

Dr. Hill: I would not dare to compete with the hon. Gentleman in his consideration of economic factors, but the Government's policy has been clear, and this is consistent with it.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the continued repetition of these parrot phrases about Government policy has created a

situation in which it is becoming more and more impossible for local authorities to do their work, and is steadily reducing the number of people who can either own their own houses or hope to get a house at a reasonable rent?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman's contentions are not in general supported by the facts, as will emerge in tomorrow's debate.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why does not the Minister openly admit that this policy of high interest rates has more than doubled the rent of new council houses and halved the number being built since 1951, and will he stop using local authorities as scapegoats for the Government's housing policy?

Dr. Hill: Long-term interest rates are necessarily high when there is a famine of capital. That has been and is the position, and this is consistent with the Government's economic policy, which is bearing fruit.

Following are the figures:
Annual cost by way of principal and interest combined in repayment of a loan of £100,000 for 60 years by way of half-yearly annuity and borrowed at the rate of interest charged on loans from the Public Works Loan Board at 31st March in each of the years in question.

Public Works Loan Board rate of interest for new borrowings at 31st March
Annual cost of Repayment


Year
Rate





Per cent.
£
s.
d.


1951
…
…
3
3,603
14
1


1952
…
…
4¼
4,620
11
0


1953
…
…
4¼
4,620
11
0


1954
…
…
4
4,409
12
5


1955
…
…
4
4,409
12
5


1956
…
…
5½
5,720
12
2


1957
…
…
5½
5,720
12
2


1958
…
…
6¼
6,409
12
11


1959
…
…
5¾
5,948
5
0


1960
…
…
5⅞
6,062
17
3


1961
…
…
6⅛
6,293
15
0

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Educational Expenditure

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, for each of the last five years, the ratio of educational expenditure in general,


and expenditure on educational building in particular, to gross national product

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures of public educational expenditure on capital and current account and the proportion which the total bears to gross national product for the five years to 1960–61.

Mr. Swingler: Have we not plenty of time to hear these figures? Will the Economic Secretary at any rate say what increased investment in education, out of the total national wealth, these figures show over the five-year period? Is the Treasury aware that education authorities, including university authorities, are now extremely fed-up, to say the least, with the famine of capital which, according to the Minister of Housing, the Government have created?

Mr. Barber: I must ask the hon. Member to examine the figures which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can tell him that in absolute terms public expenditure on education has risen by over 40 per cent. during the five years in question, and the proportion of the gross national product devoted to education has risen by about 17 per cent.

Following is the information:
The following table shows total capital expenditure by public authorities on all education (including building land, professional fees, and equipment) and current educational expenditure by public authorities and the proportion the total bears to G.N.P. for the five years to 1959–60. The figures exclude expenditure on school milk and school meals, public libraries and museums, and educational expenditure by the Service Departments.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION IN GREAT BRITAIN


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


Financial Year
Capital Expenditure
Current Expenditure
Total
Percentage of Column (4) to Gross National Product




£m.
£m.
£m.



1956–57
…
117
546
663
3·6


1957–58
…
133
613
746
3·8


1958–59
…
134
670
804
4·0


1959–60
…
137
742
879
4·1


1960–61
…
133
812
945
4·2

British Museum

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the talks between Ministers and British Museum trustees, which the Prime Minister has already announced, will take place.

Mr. Barber: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Islington. East (Mr. Fletcher) on 17th April.

Mr. Rankin: In view of that answer, why was the Question transferred from the Prime Minister to the hon. Member, who cannot answer it? Can he tell us whether the Government to which he belongs are really interested in the serious problems that face the British Museum at present? What are they doing to bring the great paintings, which are presently stored in the vaults of the Museum, into public view? If they are interested, why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended only one statutory meeting in the last five years? The Home Secretary is not in much better case. Why do not more of the 18 members attend the statutory meetings of the Museum in order to help it in its present difficulties?

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works has attended 75 per cent. of the meetings. As for the meetings referred to in the Question asked on 17th April by the hon. Member, I find that Ministers have been present at six out of the thirteen meetings there referred to. I can assure the hon. Member that we have all these matters very much in mind and, as he will know from the answer previously given, talks have already taken place between Ministers and the trustees on a number of points. I hope that further talks, including talks on the all-important question of the constitution of the British Museum, will take place before long.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Member aware that it is now a year since the Prime Minister made the promise to which I referred in the Question? During that year nothing has been done. Can the Minister tell us why?

Mr. Barber: A number of complications are involved. I am sure that the hon. Member, with his experience of the British Museum—and I know that he has been interested in it for many years—will appreciate that they are serious ones and require the most careful attention. There is one other point which is relevant. We thought it right to allow time for the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who takes precedence among the principal trustees, to familiarise himself with Museum matters so that he could form his own views.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Hallmarking (Report)

Mr. J. Silverman: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Hallmarking.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): While my right hon. Friend accepts that the existing hallmarking statutes should be replaced by new legislation, he cannot yet say when it will be possible to do so. He is considering, in the light of the Departmental Committee's Report, what form such legislation might take.

Mr. Silverman: As it is now more than three years since the Departmental Committee reported and made its recommendations, is it not about time the Government got down to it and decided which of the recommendations they intend to implement, and when?

Mr. Macpherson: The fact is that the law was described as archaic and confused. It is the accretion of centuries, and it takes some time to examine these matters.

Mr. Silverman: Not more than three years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Mr. A. Zacharia and Mr. E. Arestidou

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now reached a decision Whether to return to the Government of

Cyprus Mr. A. Zacharia and MR. E. Arestidou in the exercise of the discretion granted to him by Section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. After full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I have decided that these men should not be returned to, Cyprus and arrangements have been made for them to be released. The Cyprus Government have been informed accordingly.

Mr. Goodhart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that highly satisfactory reply, but will he remember that these men have been held in prison, in peril of their lives, for about nine months? Will he now consider whether the 1881 Fugitive Offenders Act should be amended, or consider whether, in cases which involve some element of political asylum, it might be possible for him to intervene at a somewhat earlier stage?

Mr. Butler: I am bound by the terms of this Act. When so serious a case as this comes up one naturally has a desire to examine the Statute in question, but I can give the hon. Member no specific undertaking at present, beyond saying that I will keep the matter under review.

Mr. Paget: Surely something should be done in a case like this to make things a little more expeditious. However much one may assume against these men—indeed, assuming everything against them—they were entitled to our protection, since they were our war criminals.

Mr. Butler: Yes. I will add that pertinent question to the matters which I will review.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIGARETTE SMOKING

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister what action is being taken to coordinate the efforts of the Ministries of Health, education, the Service Departments and other Ministries concerned in regard to cigarette smoking.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The Departments concerned are examining together, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations for


Government action made in the recent report by the Royal College of Physicians.

Mr. Lipton: Does not that look as if the Government's timid and feeble efforts to back up the report of the Royal College of Physicians seem to be petering out altogether? When are the Government going to take effective action and so show us that they are taking this whole problem very seriously?

Mr. Butler: We are taking the problem seriously. It involves possible aspects of Government policy not previously envisaged by any Government on a very wide range of suggestions in the report, which is receiving urgent examination.

Mr. K. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say particularly whether any progress has been made on the recommendations about cigarette advertising and when we may expect a statement on that matter?

Mr. Butler: That is one of the many matters under consideration.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can we assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the Government will do everything they can to discourage cigarette smoking; can he say whether they have yet taken a line on this issue of principle?

Mr. Butler: A line has already been taken in relation to the education and health services by my two right hon. Friends directly concerned. These are direct provinces in which the Government can act. In some of the other provinces the Government have not acted hitherto, and that is why we are examining them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the United States test explosions on Christmas Island.

Mr. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the announcement by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on 24th April that President Kennedy had authorised the

Commission and the Department of Defence to proceed with a series of tests, and the subsequent announcements by the Commission that the first and second nuclear test detonations took place in the vicinity of Christmas Island on 25th and 27th April.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the United States announcement yesterday that three high altitude tests are to take place next month, one of them involving an explosion 500 miles in the sky, could we be told what steps the Government are taking to limit the concentration of radioactive fall-out, and what estimates are being made as to the yield of radioactive fall-out consequent upon these explosions in comparison with those that were made last year by the Soviet Government?

Mr. Butler: I can give no definite answer on these matters today. I will undertake to discuss them with my right hon. Friend immediately on his return.

Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister agreed with President Kennedy about the desirability of proceeding with the tests on Christmas Island, were the Government aware that one of the tests, as reported yesterday, would have an effect 3,000 miles away? In view of the colossal nature of these tests, is it not desirable that the Government should make an announcement as to their views on this subject? Is this not an affront to civilisation?

Mr. Butler: As I said, I cannot make any further statement today. I am perfectly ready to accept questions put by hon. Members and to see that they are properly examined with a view to an answer in due course.

Mr. Gaitskell: This really is not very satisfactory. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say something in reply to the question about the very high altitude tests? As I understand it, the fall-out from these tests is likely to be much less than that from other tests. If that is the case, why does not the right hon. Gentleman say so? If, on the other hand, there are greater dangers from these tests, we are entitled to be informed.

Mr. Butler: One can make general observations of that sort. It is true that when a test is carried out at a high altitude the fall-out takes longer to reach the earth's surface and, consequently, owing to the rate of radioactive decay, the effect is less than that of tests carried out at a lower level. We have been further informed by the Americans that the radioactive fall-out will be kept to a minimum.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a moral affront to the British people that British territory should be used for tests of this kind in circumstances when they are neither necessary nor useful, when negotiations are still proceeding, and when the Government carrying them out is as irresponsible as it is immoral?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept any single remark made by the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has stated perfectly clearly all that preceded the resumption of these tests and the reasons for the tests. These reasons are well known to the House, and I have no reason to repeat them here today.

Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman says that an assurance has been given that fall-out will be kept to a minimum, can he say what "minimum" means? Does he yet know how much it means in terms of human damage—new cases of bone cancer and leukaemia and of genetic damage?

Hon. Members: What about the Russian tests?

Mr. Driberg: Of course the Russian tests have the same bad effect and we protested against them. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know this, what right had Her Majesty's Government to assent to these tests?

Mr. Butler: The statement issued by the United States Atomic Energy Commission said that it was accepted that some short-lived radio activities, such as iodine 131, would be detectable during and shortly after the series. I have no report of what the scientific assessment of that is as yet.

Mr. D. Price: Will my right hon.; Friend confirm the reports in the Press i that these new high altitude tests are supposed to be taking place on Johnstone Island, which, I understand, is an American and not a British island, t and will he also confirm that the purpose of the test is to develop an anti-I missile weapon and not a weapon of t offence?

Mr. Butler: I have no further statement to make on this subject today.

Mr. M. Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us, first, whether the British Government were informed in advance that this series of American tests would include these high altitude tests? Secondly, whether the proposals about them were independently examined by British scientists before we, accepted the views of the American scientists on the matter? Thirdly, I whether the whole proposal for going ahead with these American tests and the, British Government's approval of them was reconsidered in view of the proposals which have been put forward by the neutral nations at Geneva?

Mr. Butler: When answering Questions for the Prime Minister on the last occasion, I referred to proposals by neutral nations. I said that that was under consideration by Her Majesty's Government and by the Governments principally concerned. Other associations or communications between the United States and the United Kingdom Governments must be regarded as confidential.

Mr. Gaitskell: On the question of fall-out, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the expected fall-out from the American tests as compared with the Soviet tests last autumn?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, except in the answer that I gave, namely, that the high nature of these tests reduces the radioactive effect of the fall-out.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Niall MacDermot, esquire, for Derby, North.

REDUNDANT WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY)

3.10 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide minimum terms for severance pay for workers dismissed through redundancy or other causes beyond their control.
It is, perhaps, not inappropriate that it should be on 1st May that I seek leave to refer to a Measure designed to relieve the hardship of workers who are declared redundant. The Bill I propose would, quite simply, provide that where a worker is declared redundant, or where he loses his job through no fault of his own, he should be paid, by way of compensation, one week's severance pay for each complete year of service. That would be the minimum and not the maximum payment and it would not apply in the case of a worker who had not had the opportunity of working for a complete year.
I will very shortly attempt to describe why I think that the provision of severance pay would be of assistance to the national economy, of assistance to the employer and of assistance to the employee; and why I think that the twin principles involved in the calculation of the sum are appropriate, namely, the amount of the salary or the week's pay and the period for which the man in question has been employed.
It is perfectly obvious that the best way to deal with redundancy is to avoid it. Equally, the best way to deal with fires is to avoid them. But, nevertheless, when the tragedy caused by a fire does occur, those insured are very glad to share in the compensation fund which has been provided through insurance by the joint contributions of everyone. Similarly, it is quite clear that we shall be faced with redundancies from time to time in order to achieve increased efficiency and to keep pace with technical changes. We must be quite realistic and face the fact that redundancy, in some measure, will be a permanent accompaniment of our advancing standard of living; unless we are to be satisfied for all time to depend on that standard of living which we are able to attain by continuing firmly and with determination to make and to sell

hat-pins and horse-shoes. If we wish to keep up to date, we must recognise that some changes are inevitable.
The wise employer hopes for good labour relations. That helps him enormously. Labour relations are considerably bedevilled by the anxiety, often an inner and hidden anxiety, about redundancy and the hardship which it will entail. This anxiety is often at the root of strikes which, not infrequently, are no more than protests and demonstrations; and it also is the cause of other difficulties. If we could get rid of this anxiety, we should be getting rid of something which is a bar to good labour relations. The good employer also wants loyalty from his employees, and the best way to command loyalty is to demonstrate it. A good employer will demonstrate his loyalty best by showing that when he is compelled to dispose of the services of an employee he will not allow that employee to be left in the lurch.
The worker is the one who will benefit mainly from the proposed Measure. He is also the person Who suffers most in the event of an amalgamation, or something of that kind, which may result in increased efficiency. But sometimes an amalgamation makes it necessary to reduce the labour force. It is in the national interest that these amalgamations and improvements should take place, but the worker cannot see—and neither can I—why the nation should benefit exclusively at his expense. The worker should be considered first and not last when changes occur which are, as I have said, inevitable up to a certain point.
I consider that the relation of the compensation to wages is appropriate because the higher the wage or salary which a man is drawing the greater will be the drop in his income when he becomes unemployed. It is no use saying that if a man has been receiving a good wage or salary he should have saved something with which to meet a rainy day. Very often he is unable to do so. At all events in most cases workers do not do so. My Bill would enable a man to meet the considerable difficulties following the catastrophic fall in his in-come which, in certain cases, may arise between the time when he leaves one job and goes to the next. I consider, therefore, that the relation of pay with compensation is an appropriate formula.
Having regard to the number of years of service is, I consider, also appropriate, because the longer an employee stays with a firm—it is right that he should and it is in the interests of the employer—the more difficult, through advancing years, will it be for him to get another job. For these reasons I think that a Measure of this kind would be of considerable benefit all round.
I may be asked, "What about the cost?" According to my own unaided approximate calculation, the cost is likely to present no problem at all. A large number of employees leave their job voluntarily, so they do not require to be compensated. When redundancies arise they do not affect all the employees of a particular firm, but only a proportion, and redundancies would arise in a particular firm only from time to time. Bearing in mind all those facts, I calculate that the amount involved would be about a thousandth part of the wages bill. For every £100 of wages paid by the employer, 2s. would have to be put aside; an amount not very much different from the premium which we are all glad to pay to obtain insurance cover against fire.
If it is right that this should be done, and if the cost is not too great, one is faced with the question whether it is necessary to have legislation and why, if this is something which is worthy and necessary, it has not already been provided for. There is need for legislation because there are a number of bad or uninformed employers who treat their employees in a disgusting manner. I have had a considerable amount of mail, as a result of the help I have received with my Bill, from a number of newspapers and many cases of bad treatment have come to my notice.
I wish to mention only one, which refers to a lorry driver. He was having a dispute with his firm about the number of hours of overtime he should work. He had been working 11½ hours overtime and the firm wanted him to work more. This he was unwilling to do, so he was given one week's notice. This happened to a man aged 52, after he had given thirty years of service to the firm. It is true that the people owning the firm had changed. No doubt the original employers would not have had the heart to take such action. Nevertheless,

the effect was the same. It was the same firm and the same employee. At the age of 52 he finds himself on the labour market, with one week's wages in lieu of notice. There are many other workers who have found themselves in a similar position and such a situation is not good enough.
There are, of course, many good employers. The Civil Service pays a temporary civil servant seven weeks' pay after seven years' service, if the employee is no longer required. In local government the same man would have received approximately nine weeks' pay. An engineer employed by B.O.A.C. would receive six weeks' pay after five years' service. If he were declared redundant after ten years, he would receive ten weeks' severance pay. Those are good examples to set in contrast to the others. In the time available I shall not give details of what happens abroad, but many countries on the Continent and the United States of America provide by way of legislation and common law for severance pay in these circumstances.
I think it right that there should be legislation. I think it right that this matter should be dealt with not in the crisis atmosphere of redundancy, but at the start of the engagement so that when a man is engaged he knows the terms upon which he is engaged. I seek leave to introduce a Measure which, on the grounds of efficiency, improved labour relations and simple humanity, I consider to be much overdue.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Diamond, Mr. John Rankin, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. Herbert Butler, Mr. Ron Ledger, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. Parkin, Mr. Julius Silverman, and Mr. John Stonehouse.

REDUNDANT WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY)

Bill to provide minimum terms for severance pay for workers dismissed through redundancy or other causes beyond their control, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th May, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir John Hobson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The need for this Bill arises from Northern Ireland's special position as an integral part of the United Kingdom which yet has its own separate Parliament and Government. It may be helpful if I first explain to the House the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland in a few sentences. The Bill is of a very miscellaneous character and the constitutional background provides the one common thread which runs through the whole of the Bill. It is the real reason for the varied nature of the numerous Clauses.
Written and rigid constitutions are alien to our British practice and experience. We dislike a precise and unalterable framework which has a constricting effect upon parliamentary efforts and which stands in the way of development to meet changing needs and circumstances. We in Westminster prefer a more flexible and pragmatic approach, allowing our parliamentary institutions and our system of government to grow naturally and, relying on convention and precedent as well as on the good sense of all concerned, to keep the whole system working smoothly.
This approach could not, however, be adopted when Northern Ireland's system of government was established, forty years ago, for it was then necessary to devise a system whereby two Parliaments and two Governments could exercise joint responsibilities over the same territory. The only way to avoid confusion in such circumstances was, therefore, to define clearly and in some detail the division of the powers and functions between the two Parliaments and Governments.
We thus created in a single instance within the United Kingdom something analogous to the federal system of other countries where there is a State legislature within the united whole, although

it is an analogy only, because in this instance the Parliament of the United Kingdom retains complete power to legislate for all matters within Northern Ireland while the Northern Ireland Parliament has only restricted powers for dealing with the matters which are within its own competence.
The scheme which was devised was laid down by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The method adopted by that Act was to confer on the Northern Ireland Parliament a general responsibility to legislate for order and good government in Northern Ireland, that is, broadly speaking, a responsibility covering all domestic matters within Northern Ireland, and to remove from the competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament responsibility for all other matters, both those which were of a more wide nature than affected Northern Ireland only and for matters which were general to the United Kingdom, such as foreign policy, defence, customs and excise, revenues and such other matters.
As I have said, however, while the Parliament of Northern Ireland is given power to legislate within its particular province the supreme authority of the United Kingdom Parliament was retained for all matters and all purposes affecting Northern Ireland, although, in practice, it has not been usual for this Parliament at Westminster to legislate upon any matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Parliament at Stormont.
This scheme has two important consequences for us in this Parliament. First, the original forms and divisions between the two Parliaments cannot remain static for ever. It is only this Parliament at Westminster which can alter the boundaries between the two and in any way enlarge the competence of the Parliament at Stormont. Secondly, much of the law which is passed at Westminster is directly applicable in Northern Ireland and is made by this Parliament. It is, therefore, the duty of this Parliament to see that such law is kept up to date and is in accordance with the needs not only of the whole of the United Kingdom, but of Northern Ireland in particular.
The first of these consequences comes from the fact that the powers of the


Northern Ireland Parliament depend on a mould which was cast at a particular point of time, and which was never expected to remain suitable for ever. The Northern Ireland constitution and powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament must grow and be adjusted just as much as those of the United Kingdom need to be. Yet, for the reasons I have explained, the model and mould of the Northern Ireland Parliament had to be set in a rigid pattern which, if it were never altered, would completely stifle all development.
In practice, a regular system of alteration and adjustment has been required ever since 1920. Responsibility for all those alterations for allowing Northern Ireland's constitution to develop rests squarely upon this Parliament. If we shirked the responsibility we would be discriminating against the people of Northern Ireland by preventing them from enjoying the same legislative advances which we ourselves decree for the rest of Great Britain.
This, in practice, we have not done. We have passed a series of Acts devoted largely to improving the situation, called the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts. One was passed in 1928, another in 1932 and a third in 1945. Northern Ireland Acts were also passed in 1947 and 1955. In addition, there have been a host of detailed ad hoc adjustments included in United Kingdom statutes dealing with particular subjects so as to adjust them for the benefit of citizens of Northern Ireland.
The second consequence of the constitutional arrangements I have described is that a large part of the law applicable to Northern Ireland is contained in statutes of the United Kingdom Parliament and only this Parliament can, therefore, make changes in them. In many cases the law in question extends to the United Kingdom as a whole and not merely to Northern Ireland. There are, however, some branches of the law applying only to the law in Northern Ireland which remain our responsibility, notably the law relating to the Northern Ireland Supreme Court, a subject reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament and not within the competence of the Parliament at Stormont. Here again it is for us to keep this law

up to date. The principle of this Bill is simply that of discharging by this Parliament the responsibilities towards Northern Ireland which I have described. I hope that the whole House will welcome the Bill as a step forward in giving to the Parliament of Northern Ireland a substantial measure of additional freedom in the administration of its own affairs.
The Bill falls into three parts. The first twelve Clauses relate to the Northern Ireland Supreme Court, which, as I have said, remains our responsibility and will continue to remain our responsibility after the passage of the Bill. In 1949, the Lord Chancellor of the day set up a Committee to examine the enactments relating to the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland. Much of the law relating to the administration of justice in Northern Ireland was fairly ancient and the Supreme Court itself is still governed by an Act of 1877. For certain purposes, in particular for determining whether an appeal can be taken to the House of Lords, it is still necessary to refer back to the Act of Union of 1800.
The Committee which was set up was under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Sheil and it reported in 1957. It made a number of recommendations designed to simplify and to bring up-to-date the law and procedure of the Supreme Court. Clauses 1 to 12 of the Bill give effect to a number of the Committee's main recommendations as well as making other reforms in this branch of the law. They will bring about considerable simplification and improvement.
I do not consider it necessary at this stage to go into the detail of the numerous provisions that are contained in the first twelve Clauses of the Bill. They are very detailed and, no doubt, can be examined with care in Committee. I might, however, mention that Clauses 1 and 2 simplify and bring up-to-date the law relating to appeals to the House of Lords and to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, respectively, and are based upon the corresponding provisions of the English law.
Clauses 7 and 8 will establish for the first time in Northern Ireland a new rule-making committee in place of the present authority. That Committee will


have powers similar to those of the Rules of Count Committee in England, which, in the view of all who have had experience of it, has worked very well. It is intended to provide this Committee with similar powers for the purpose of the practice and procedure of the Supreme Count of Northern Ireland.
Clause 11 reduces the number of jurors required in civil proceedings—not criminal proceedings—from twelve to seven. In England, the absolute right to a jury in a civil action is considerably restricted, but there are no such restrictions in Northern Ireland; they are not apparently desired. The result is that jury trials in civil actions are common in Northern Ireland. Jury service, however, imposes a heavy burden on those qualified to serve, particularly on the citizens of Belfast. Clause 11, therefore, is designed to relieve that burden while preserving the existing rights to a jury trial. Juries of twelve will still remain for all criminal proceedings.
The second section of the Bill consists of Clauses 13 to 21, which contain various Amendments of Northern Ireland's constitution. The most important of these Clauses are Clauses 13 to 15, which relax certain general restrictions on the competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament which are contained at present in Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
We in this fully sovereign Parliament must find it hard to imagine the situation of the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament, who are not free to pass or to propose any legislation that they consider desirable in the sphere which is their particular responsibility. They have at all times to pay regard to the general and far-reaching restrictions which are imposed upon them by the 1920 Act. As a result, it would be no exaggeration to say that they find themselves in the dilemma of having placed upon them responsibilities which they are sometimes unable to discharge in a fully satisfactory manner. I am not, of course, referring to the main provisions in Section 5 of the 1920 Act, which prohibits discriminatory legislation on religious grounds or against any religion. Those parts of Section 5 of the 1920 Act, which are of great importance, will be quite untouched. The Bill does nothing whatever to affect those positions.
Section 5 of the 1920 Act also contains, however, two secondary provisions of a different nature and it is with these secondary provisions that Clauses 13 to 15 are concerned. The effect of the second part of Section 5, which has to be read with similar provisions in Article 16 of the Schedule to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, is that the Northern Ireland Parliament may authorise the acquisition on payment of compensation of property of religious and educational bodies only for certain specified purposes. These are for roads, railways, lighting, water or drainage work and other works of public utility. Such property of religious and educational bodies may not be acquired for any other public purpose, however important or whatever its nature.
The intention in 1920 was to strike a balance between the protection of those religious and educational bodies, on the one hand, and the recognition of the needs of society, on the other. One does not need to know much history to remember that in 1920, town planning had hardly been thought of and the practice of it was almost non-existent. It was not, therefore, included, nor were any provisions included in Section 5 which enabled the property of religious and educational bodies to be taken for any normal town planning purposes.
Clause 13 of the Bill has the intention of slightly widening the purposes for which such property may be taken. Since 1920, our conception of the needs of society has grown and it is now fairly generally accepted that housing, slum clearance and the development and redevelopment of areas are important social objects. It is also accepted that these objects could not be satisfactorily achieved without the powers of compulsory purchase. The law in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland provides accordingly.
In Northern Ireland, however, those powers cannot be used at present to acquire property of religious and educational bodies because of the provisions which I have described. As a result, in many instances progress has been impeded, because all types of property of any religious or educational body may obstruct a comprehensive scheme. Property not only in churches and schools, but property which may be of


an investment nature, a sporting nature or any other nature which is vested in any religious or educational body in Northern Ireland, is now completely protected from compulsory acquisition even for slum clearance or housing purposes. This has led to difficulties. As one may imagine, in heavily built-up areas there are considerable blocks of such property which may make a sensible and comprehensive scheme of development almost impossible of attainment.
Subsection 1 (a) of Clause 13 of the Bill therefore permits these powers of compulsory acquisition to be applied to some of the property of the religious and educational bodies. That is to say, these powers can be applied to their investment property and to any other property except buildings which are occupied and used exclusively by such bodies for religious or educational purposes. Such buildings—that is, churches and schools—will remain completely outside the power of the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate for compulsory purchase. If, however, the Clause is passed in its present form, the Northern Ireland Parliament will be able to pass legislation that will enable other properties of religious and educational bodies to be taken by compulsory purchase for slum clearance, housing and general development schemes.
I should make it clear that this provision implies no criticism of the attitude to schemes of social betterment of the religious and educational bodies in Northern Ireland. It is, however, the common experience that, while there may be general support for the principle of slum clearance and redevelopment, the practical application in individual instances is apt to lead to genuine differences of opinion between those who own the property and those who seek to acquire it compulsorily.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That applies in other places, too.

The Solicitor-General: Of course. Consequently, there must be some machinery for carrying through schemes of slum clearance and the like which includes a power for the responsible authorities to decide what shall be done.
This provision is not aimed at any one particular body. It applies equally

to the property of all the religious denominations and educational institutions in Northern Ireland, and there is no religious discrimination in it of any sort. Where the property of a religious body may be must be largely a matter of chance, and whether one religious body or another happens to own property within an area which is due for slum clearance or development must also be purely a matter of chance.
There are nearly 200 separate denominations within Northern Ireland and it is because the property of all these denominations, when added together, is of considerable extent that there exists a very real problem which this paragraph is intended to relieve.
The need to maintain reasonable protection for the interests of the Churches has been recognised by the exclusion from this new provision of buildings used for the essential purposes of the church or educational institution concerned. Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, such buildings may be free from compulsory acquisition for slum clearance and some similar purposes in Northern Ireland. They are not so free within the rest of the United Kingdom at present. Clause 13 (1, b)—

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Before the learned Solicitor-General leaves paragraph (a), will he confirm that the exemption contained in the Bill applies to all buildings used for purposes ancillary to a religious denomination or educational institution?

The Solicitor-General: It includes all buildings which are in the curtilage of a building used exclusively for the religious or educational purposes of the body. An ancillary building in the shape of a sports pavilion not within the curtilage would not be exempted from compulsory acquisition, unless it could be shown that it was used exclusively for the purposes of the religious or educational body. I do not think that I can go so far as to say that all ancillary buildings will be exempted, but all ancillary buildings Which are within the curtilage are certainly included in the exemption from compulsory purchase.
Subsection (1, b) confirms that the Northern Ireland Parliament has powers to pass laws controlling the use of land,


including buildings, whether it belongs to a religious or educational body or to any other body. The extent of its power to do so at present is doubtful because of the restrictions contained in Section 5 of the 1920 Act. The object of Clause 13 (1, b) is to ensure that planning legislation, and other similar measures, can be applied in the same way to all property, irrespective of its ownership.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Does that concern property which is being used now, or will it concern only property of tomorrow? In other words, will the Parliament of Northern Ireland be given power to decide how land of this character is to be used at this moment? Will the Northern Ireland Parliament have the right under the Bill to say, in respect of a small piece of land on which there is a church hall, "This shall not be a church hall. We decree that it shall be used for other purposes"?

The Solicitor-General: I think that it would be within the competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament to do so, but the probability of its passing any such legislation is very remote indeed. As I understand, it is the intention to make the planning provisions of Northern Ireland similar to those in this country. The difficulty at the moment is that any restriction upon a change of user of land might be held to be incompetent to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It is to get out of that difficulty that this provision is included in the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish rose—

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Member will wait a few minutes I will give him a few more explanations. He will then be able to say whether he is satisfied or not.
Clause 14 of the Bill repeals the third part of Section 5 of the 1920 Act, which prohibits the Northern Ireland Parliament from legislating
so as either directly or indirectly to … take any property without compensation".
This provision was intended to prevent expropriation. The Northern Ireland Parliament has no wish to expropriate, but the words I have quoted from the existing Section 5 go very much wider than appears at first sight. A number

of legal decisions, including two very recent decisions in the House of Lords, have made this clear and have shown that the precise extent of this prohibition is difficult to determine.
Property in this context does not merely mean physical property or physical buildings. It includes interests in property, the right to use property, and such things as the goodwill of a business. Taking property in this context does not mean simply a complete deprivation but may also include any diminution of a right to use property. If, therefore, the phrase "take any property", Which is incompetent for the Parliament of Northern Ireland, is construed in this very wide sense, a great deal of our modern social legislation dealing with property and its user under the planning Acts would be incompetent to the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
For instance, there are provisions in the British planning code and public health law which restrict the way in which an owner may use his property, but provide no compensation, there being in many cases no justification for compensating an owner who is merely required to refrain from a use of his property which society rightly considers undesirable.
The Northern Ireland Parliament, however, has to provide compensation every time it authorises the taking of property. In this wide sense, therefore, it may have to provide compensation for imposing a restriction on changing the user of property. In practice, this has meant that it has been precluded from passing legislation on lines which we in this Parliament have for many years considered as necessary, ordinary, and desirable. Clause 14 frees the Northern Ireland Parliament from this constraint.
I think that the point that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) desired me to deal with was that the removal of this prohibition might lead to confiscatory legislation or interference by the Government of Northern Ireland with the way in which an ordinary owner of property uses his property. The difficulty is that it would be almost impossible to draft a precise and workable provision setting out what are the circumstances in which the Parliament of Northern Ireland may or may not interfere with the user of property.


There is no reason to think that the Northern Ireland Parliament is any more likely to pass what may be called confiscatory legislation than this Parliament or is more likely to pass legislation which will give the Government or any other authority the right to dictate to individuals how they should use property different from the way in which it is at present being used.

Mr. Mellish: I am informed that the phrase "the use of land", contained in Clause 13 (1, b), is rather uncommon in town and country planning legislation. For that reason, doubts have arisen. I accept the Solicitor-General's statement that there is no suggestion that the Stormont or any other Parliament would use these powers unnecessarily or unfairly. No one suggests that. However, could we not provide a very good safeguard by defining exactly what we mean and say "the development of land" instead of "the use of land", because so much argument can turn on the phrase "the use of land"? This may appear to be only a Committee point, but to some of us it is very important.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that there will be opportunities to discuss this in Committee, but I commend this thought to the hon. Gentleman. Once we start dividing out the difference between one restriction on the competence of Parliament to deal with the use of land and another we shall find ourselves in even greater difficulties than we are at present. The narrow distinctions that would be necessary to see exactly how far planning legislation could be passed, and exactly and precisely what interests in land and what interests in land of third parties were affected, or could be dealt with by the Northern Ireland Parliament, would really place that Parliament in almost greater difficulties.
I would further remind the hon. Gentleman that we at Westminster are, of course, perfectly free to pass legislation of this nature, and it is only for that purpose that freedom is being transferred to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. The Government will be very willing, in Committee, to consider any suggestions or proposals that may be put forward, because we recognise that

this is a difficult question, and one that requires care and thought, although the Government's present view is that it is probably better to leave it fairly wide, and to entrust to the Parliament of Northern Ireland the discretion responsibly to pass such legislation under this head as we have power to pass in this House at Westminster.
The rest of this Bill contains a number of miscellaneous points—

Mr. Fletcher: Before the Solicitor-General passes from that matter, in view of the precise ambit of the powers that will be given by Clause 13 to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and as there may be some doubt as to how far they extend, will the hon. and learned Gentleman please confirm that in the event of any dispute the House of Lords will still be able to determine whether or not any law of the Parliament of Northern Ireland is ultra vires?

The Solicitor-General: That is certainly so. The right of appeal in all circumstances where the validity of an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament is in question is quite untouched by this Bill. The right of appeal to the House of Lords in such circumstances will now only be subject to similar provisions to the English laws about appeals to the House of Lords. Such appeals are now to be controlled by Clause 1 of the Bill, which merely brings the law in relation to appeals in Northern Ireland into line with the general provisions of the law of the rest of the United Kingdom.
As I was saying, the remaining Clauses are, perhaps, minor, but they are useful. In many respect, they form part of the process I have described of amending and bringing up to date the Northern Ireland constitution and the law in Northern Ireland by extending the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament to manage the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I might mention Clause 15. This will remove doubts about the Northern Ireland Parliament's power to pass legislation providing for security of tenure or enlarging estates or interests in land.
Clause 17 will enable that Parliament to legislate so as to prevent cruelty to horses exported from Northern Ireland.


There is no suggestion that there is any cruelty in the export of horses from Northern Ireland; indeed, I believe that the present export of horses from Northern Ireland is not very extensive—

Mr. Mellish: Oh, yes, it is.

The Solicitor-General: —but there may well, in future, be a diversion, or an increase in the trade. It is, I think, obviously right that the Northern Ireland Parliament should have power to deal with that trade and control it, and to take such measures at the port of embarkation—where it must be controlled—as are necessary to see that there is no cruelty.
Clause 18 will enlarge the power of the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate for the purpose of fostering the export of agricultural produce from Northern Ireland. Clause 19 removes doubt about that Parliament's power to base charges for services or facilities on the quantity of a product. They can now deal with charges on the basis of the acreage of a farm, or the number of people employed, or on a variety of other bases but, because of one sentence in the drafting of the 1920 Act, the Northern Ireland Parliament cannot raise charges for services according to the quantity of the product for which those services are required. This is a useful Amendment, and deals with something that should obviously be within the power of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
Clause 24 will assist in the enforcement of the law and, in particular, of the law of Great Britain. It deals with the mutual backing of warrants, and provides for an easier system within Northern Ireland which will slightly increase the number of persons who may be authorised to back warrants for execution in different parts of the United Kingdom.
To sum up, the Bill recognises the rather special responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament towards Northern Ireland which results from the constitutional arrangements I have described. It will improve the administration of justice, it will further social progress in Northern Ireland, and will, in a number of other small but useful ways, be of assistance to the life and

people of that very important part of the United Kingdom. For all those reasons, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

3.56 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The Solicitor-General has had a far from easy task in explaining the details of this Bill. I think that anybody would start consideration of this Measure by agreeing at once that its purpose is sensible and useful. That purpose is to devolve a considerable extension of freedom upon the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was passed forty-two years ago and, as the Solicitor-General has said, it has since been necessary from time to time to enlarge the freedom of action of the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Bill is really a further step in that direction.
In those circumstances, and speaking for myself, I would gladly welcome the principle of the Bill, but it will, naturally, be expected that we should look rather carefully into its detail, particularly as that detail trenches upon matters about which people have very strong feelings; some religious feelings, and some that are in no sense connected with any religious denomination at all.
Starting from that standpoint, perhaps I may ask the House to consider some aspects of Clauses about which anxieties have been expressed in Northern Ireland. We are in Westminster, but the House will probably agree that in examining the Bill's provisions we should, in a sense, try to look at the matter, to some extent at least, through the eyes of those who live in Northern Ireland. Looking at the Bill from that point of view, I have heard expressions of considerable anxiety about the wording of the first two Clauses.
The first two Clauses deal with the question of appeals both to the House of Lords in this country and to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. The right of appeal to the House of Lords is greatly valued in Northern Ireland, and is there regarded as a very considerable safeguard to the citizen. That being so, what is the case for the provision—to take an example—in subsection (8) of Clause 1, which frees the Northern Ireland Parliament by making it competent to that Parliament to enact


that, in regard to particular causes, the decision of the lower court shall be final, so that there shall, in effect, be no further right of appeal, even with the leave of the House of Lords? The subsection enables the Northern Ireland Parliament to say that in certain categories of human action the decision of the court below will be the final decision, and will not be subject to challenge.
There may be a perfectly good case for that, but I think that those who have expressed those anxieties in Northern Ireland—anxieties centring upon the fact that this provision enables the Parliament of Northern Ireland to curtail to an almost immeasurable extent, if I rightly read the provision, the right of appeal to the House of Lords—should know what the case for it is. For what sort of purpose is it likely to be used? Is there, in fact, any contemplated purpose? What are the motives that have led to that particular provision? Prima facie it seems to trench on the right under the present system of going to the House of Lords, subject always to obtaining the leave either of the Court of Appeal or of the House of Lords in the event of the Court of Appeal refusing that leave.
I am not trying to be obstructive, nor are those in Northern Ireland who are anxious about this matter. We simply want to know the case for this provision. It was said in another place by the Lord Chancellor, and, by implication, the Solicitor-General repeated it today, that there must be some change in the existing provisions with regard to the right of appeal to the House of Lords. The Solicitor General intimated that the existing provisions are archaic and involved, in a number of cases, the examination of pre-1801 legislation, to which no sensible person would wish to cling. While wishing to co-operate in bringing the procedure up to date I must ask the Solicitor General why Clause 1 (8) is necessary. I hope that he will set out the case for it, because, no doubt, there must be an adequate case.
I make almost exactly the same observations concerning Clause 2 (3) which, if I read it right, does almost exactly the same with regard to appeal to the Northern Irish Court of Appeal as does the previous provision with regard to the

right of appeal to the House of Lords. There again, the Northern Ireland Parliament is given the power to restrict to an almost indefinite extent by the appropriate legislative instrument the right of appeal to the Northern Irish Court of Appeal. This provision has occasioned anxiety for exactly the same sort of reason.
It is asked by those in Northern Ireland who are concerned with these matters, "Why should our right of appeal be restricted?" There may be a good case for the restriction, but can the Solicitor-General say just what is the kind of situation in which it is envisaged that the Northern Ireland Parliament will wish to restrict the right of appeal to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal? I do not wish to labour this matter, but I hope that the Solicitor General will deal with it.
Having voiced those anxieties, I turn to Clause 7, which has also given rise to some concern, notably subsection (2). This enables the new Rules Committee, to be set up, in effect to overrule the existing statutory provisions in the exercise of their rule-making power. I am aware that there is—I believe in Section 99 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925—a similar provision in our legislative system. It is, no doubt, useful and, on appropriate occasions, is exercised in a very beneficial way. But, in the context of the Northern Ireland provisions, it has given rise to some anxiety and I ask, even at this stage, whether there could not be introduced in Clause 7 (2) some safeguard to see that the power is not unduly exercised. Perhaps this is more a Standing Committee matter, but considerable anxieties have been expressed about it.
I turn to what undoubtedly may be said to be the controversial focus of the Bill, Clause 13. I do not believe that I would be serving any useful purpose by reopening past controversies, but the difficulties could certainly have been avoided had the Government taken the precaution of consulting the representatives and interests of the various religious and educational organisations which will be directly affected by Clause 13. If hon. Members will read the proceedings of another place they will see that apparently since the Bill was first presented there consultations have taken


place between the Lord Chancellor and the representatives of the various religious denominations concerned and that a measure of agreement has, I understand, been reached.
It is apparent from some questions which have already been asked in the House that it may be that the anxieties to which Clause 13 gave rise have not been altogether allayed. If so—and I do not seek to reawaken them now—we might wish to give the Clause some further consideration. Everyone would agree that for the reasons clearly stated by the Solicitor-General it is a necessary clause, providing it incorporates the necessary safeguards. I shall say no more about this now, except to express regret that the Government should have, as it were, faced those concerned with the text of the Bill without any sort of preliminary consultations, with the result that criticisms have been expressed which, I hope, have now been set at rest.
Clause 14, apparently, has the frightening purpose of enabling the Northern Irish Legislature to enact that property can be taken without compensation. While in no sense seeking to endorse such a principle, I think that the Solicitor-General has made out a case for the clause. As he said, it has been argued in the courts, and successfully, that any interference with the completely free use of property, necessarily exercised in the public interest and for purposes of social advancement will give rise, because of Section 5 of the 1920 Act, to a lawful right to compensation. That may lead to results which really are impossible to envisage and it is for that purpose, as I understood the remarks of the Solicitor-General, that the Clause has been introduced. Speaking for myself, I thought that he certainly made out a case for it.
The first part of the Bill, as the Solicitor-General explained, is designed to give effect to recommendations made by the Sheil Committee, over which Mr. Justice Sheil presided and which reported in 1957. I have compared the provisions of the Bill with that Committee's Report and it seems that the Government certainly have chosen the most important recommendations of that Committee and have embodied them in the Bill. To that extent I congratulate the Government,

for it was a most valuable Report and is so regarded by everyone who has had to consider it.
I would, however, make this comment. There are certainly some other things which I would have thought the Government could have included in the Bill. Some of them have already been referred to in another place and today I shall refer to only two of them and ask the Government whether they might be dealt with, even at this stage. The first question arises on the subject of the adoption of children in Northern Ireland, it is apparently the case now—and this is a matter which, I understand, has been raised in Northern Ireland—that because of the existing provisions of the Northern Irish Legislative code a most unreasonable position arises regarding the adoption of children by persons in Northern Ireland.
There are a number of people domiciled in Great Britain who take up, for one reason or another, residence for a prolonged period in Northern Ireland, either because they may be members of Her Majesty's Forces, or because they are engaged on some contract of service in Northern Ireland. Under the existing provisions of the Northern Irish code persons domiciled in Great Britain—as those persons to whom I have referred would be—but resident in Northern Ireland, are entirely debarred from adopting an infant in Northern Ireland. Equally, they cannot adopt an infant in Great Britain unless one of the adopters lives in Great Britain for three consecutive months preceding the application to adopt and both have been living together in Great Britain for at least one of those months.
That is the result of the operation of Section 27 of the Northern Ireland Adoption of Children Act, 1950 and of Section 15 of the English Adoption Act, 1958. It obviously imposes hardship. Of course, it is in the general interest that children who have no homes of their own should be adopted by persons who are anxious to adopt them and should be given a chance to live full lives. Because of this accident of legislation, many people—I do not say that there are hosts of them, but a not inconsiderable number—whose homes are in England and whose work is in Northern Ireland cannot adopt children either in England


or in Ireland. That is something which should be changed, and the only obstacle in the way of change at the moment is the restricting provision of Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
Once one is about the task of enlarging the freedom of action of the Northern Ireland Legislature, surely there I have pointed to a situation which is particularly amenable to some handling by the Bill. Section 4 of the 1920 Act is the only obstacle, and I understand that if that Section were changed this anomalous provision could be brought to a more commonsense proportion. That is one of the provisions to which I suggest the House might give attention in the course of considering the Bill.
The other provision is one to which I believe the Solicitor-General made passing reference. That relates to a recommendation made by the Report of the Northern Ireland Child Welfare Council on the Operation of Juvenile Courts in Northern Ireland. Its recommendation, which it urged strongly, is set out on page 18 of its Report, at paragraph 41, and I think that I can do no better than read the paragraph which is quite short and specific in its terms. It states:
Although there is power for the transfer of probation orders between England and Scotland when a person on probation changes his residence from one country to the other, this power does not extend to Northern Ireland. We understand that by an official arrangement supervision of English or Scottish probationers is carried out in Northern Ireland and vice versa but no action can be taken if a breach of the probation order is committed. We therefore recommend strongly that reciprocal arrangements similar to those in force between England and Scotland should be made in respect of Northern Ireland.
I put it to the Government for consideration whether something on those lines could not be incorporated in the present Bill.
There is only one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the provision in Clause 11 with regard to jurors. The provision in terms is to the effect that juries can consist of seven persons instead of twelve. That is a provision which I understand is disliked in Northern Ireland, at any rate by the legal profession. I must say that it is a provision for which I myself have a considerable distaste.
What is the position? For criminal causes the Bill proposes that there shall

still have to be twelve jurors. For civil causes there may be no more than seven jurors. My first question is this: if it is necessary to try a criminal cause with twelve jurors, why is it not equally necessary to try a civil cause with twelve jurors? In both types of legal proceeding what the court wants to get at is the truth, and it wants to use the best method possible of ascertaining the real facts.
The issue in a criminal cause has to be considered by twelve persons. Under the code of law which we are considering they are considered the right number of persons for the purpose of ascertaining the truth in a criminal cause. Why in a civil cause, if this Measure goes through, should it be possible to ascertain the truth with seven jurors? The issues of fact are very often similar. In civil causes they are often of the greatest importance to the individual, and it passes my comprehension why, if twelve jurors are necessary in a criminal case, they are not equally necessary in a civil case.
I do not like Clause 11 at all. I have a further objection to it. If one is to reduce the number of jurors, is it really a very good thing to reduce them to an odd number? If we reduce them to an odd number, are we really not tempting jurors to come, as it were, to compromise verdicts by a majority, instead of discharging what is their real duty, namely, to see whether they can come to a single verdict which embraces all their assents? If they cannot do that, they ought to disagree and there should be a new trial. If there is an odd number, surely we are almost inviting them to decide by a majority, which is against their duty.
I quite see the difficulty that busy persons do not want to be kept away from their occupations for long periods of time. I would say two things with regard to that. In the first place, is the Solicitor-General really satisfied that every administrative step has been taken and is taken in Northern Ireland to prevent jurors sitting around in courts unnecessarily, waiting to go into the jury box? A lot can be done to prevent people wasting their time, by ordinary simple administrative provisions.
Secondly, if the numbers available for jury service are so limited as to impose


an undue burden upon those who are called to serve, would it not be reasonable to enlarge the qualifications of those who can serve upon juries? I am told—perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell me whether I am right or wrong—that to qualify for jury service in Northern Ireland one has to occupy premises of an annual value of £40 or over. I do not know whether that is right or not, but that is what I have been told. I am also told that the great bulk of premises in Northern Ireland are of an annual value of between £20 and £30. If that is so, it means that there is in operation there a property qualification which produces the result that a very large number, and indeed the bulk, of Northern Irish citizens cannot serve upon juries.
I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General would make some inquiry, if he cannot answer me straight "off the cuff", as to whether I am right or not. If I am right, one simple way of dealing with the matter would be to enlarge the qualification and in that way to make far more people qualify to serve on juries so as to alleviate the burden. The Solicitor-General appears to have received some information. If he would either shake his head or nod, it would help me.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice: If I am wrong, then I have been misinformed.

The Solicitor-General: I was not indicating that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was misinformed. I was merely indicating that I have not received any information.

Sir F. Soskice: In that case, may my point be put in cold storage until the Solicitor-General is more adequately informed?
Whether I am right or wrong, I would urge upon the Government the general principle that jury service has something of fundamental importance in it, and that the community is entitled to look to the individual citizen to be ready to shoulder a not inconsiderable measure of personal inconvenience to discharge that duty. That is the objection which I have of Clause 11. As I have said, it is not an objection which only I personally hold. It is one which, to my knowledge, is held in some circles in

Northern Ireland and I put it to the Government for their consideration.
Having made those criticisms of the Bill, I would certainly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House to give it a welcome. It is a useful Bill. It is perfectly right in principle; and, subject, of course, to our retaining our right to look at it very closely in Committee, I feel that we ought to be ready to give it a Second Reading.

4.20 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: On behalf of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland, I welcome the Bill. Much of it is a lawyers' Bill, and it is with some trepidation that I, a layman, enter into the discussion, particularly after the extremely able and lucid speech which the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has just delivered. I shall not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman into those parts of the Bill which deal with the Supreme Court or with the Rules committee, except to slay that I know that there is great feeling among solicitors in Northern Ireland about the composition of the Rules Committee. This is something to which my hon. Friends and I will direct attention when the Bill goes to Committee.
I was interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the two points which he considered ought to be in the Bill, the provision relating to adoption and the arrangements for juvenile courts and probation orders. I hope that the Government will look into these matters. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, if we are engaged upon enlarging the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, anything useful which should be added in the course of that enlargement ought to be dealt with in the context of the Bill, without waiting to take another bite at the cherry.
I wish to deal particularly with something the right hon. and learned Gentleman touched on, namely, the question of consultation prior to certain of the provisions of the Bill being operated. I am not sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested it, but it has been suggested in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that there is a duty upon the Government of Northern Ireland to consult


before making recommendations to, or entering into consultation with, the Government here about the enlargement of their powers. It has been suggested that, for instance, in regard to the Clause dealing with religious property and the Clause dealing with compensation, the Government of Northern Ireland ought to have consulted interested parties, such as the Churches, and so on, before taking this matter up. In my view, that is not a valid argument.
There is a great constitutional difficulty here. It is important to have the constitutional position right and not allow confusion to arise as between the two Governments and two Parliaments. The Parliament of Northern Ireland is not quite like a colonial Parliament Northern Ireland is very much a part of the United Kingdom. The electorate of Northern Ireland speaks not only through the Members of Parliament in Northern Ireland, but through the Members of Parliament which Northern Ireland sends to this House of Commons. The division of function lies between this Parliament, which determines the extent of the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Parliament itself, which determines whether those powers shall be used, how they shall be used and how they shall be administered.
Therefore, if we were to lay down what would, I think, be the constitutional innovation that, before the Government of Northern Ireland entered into discussion with the Government here about a possible enlargement of their powers, they had a duty to consult interested parties or a duty to consult the Parliament of Northern Ireland, we should, I think, lay the way open for grave constitutional difficulty. If the Parliament of Northern Ireland decided that it wanted greater powers and passed a resolution to that effect, on being consulted by the Northern Ireland Government, and then the Parliament here refused to give those powers, a serious constitutional crisis would be created.
In my view, the right practice to follow is that which is followed at present and has always been followed since 1920, namely, that inter-Governmental discussions are confidential and that the Parliament of Northern Ireland is not

consulted prior to the enlargement of its powers in this Parliament. If there is any duty about consulting Northern Ireland opinion, it must fall upon the Government here and upon the representatives here in this House who represent the Northern Ireland electorate. When the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland have been enlarged, and when the Government give power to recommend certain legislation to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, that is the stage at which a duty may fall upon the Government of Northern Ireland to consult the Parliament of Northern Ireland or other interested bodies, but not before. I think that it would be a dangerous innovation if a contrary view were accepted.
It is wise to have this clear, in view of criticisms which I have heard. I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Member for Newport was criticising the Government of Northern Ireland or the Government here on this score.

Sir F. Soskice: This Government.

Captain Orr: I am much obliged. Apart from whether his criticism as such is correct, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is more correct constitutionally in putting it in that way.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the subject matter of Clause 13 was fully debated in another place, and I think that the Amendments there resolved the difficulties. At least, I hope that they have been resolved. If not, we can go into the matter a little further in Committee. I should have thought that the major objection, at least, had been removed. What I wish to deal with is Clause 14 regarding the taking of property without compensation.
My hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, quite rightly, that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 is, as it stands at present, highly restrictive. It is so restrictive that lawyers disagree about how restrictive it is. The history of the words in the 1920 Act is very interesting. The words there, which it is proposed to amend by the Bill, provide that the Government of Northern Ireland is not empowered
to take any property without compensation.


This provision, as the lawyers know, is derived from Article 5 of the American Constitution.
The curious thing is that the Home Rule Bill of 1886—the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will be interested in this, because of his knowledge of Irish history—did not contain these words. The Bill of 1893 did contain such words. They were put in the Bill of 1893 because it was thought necessary to protect the Irish landlords from expropriation, and their inclusion was bitterly resented by the Irish nationalists of the day. The result was that, in the Home Rule Bill of 1912, when the Liberal Party was in power, there were no such words at all and no such provision was ever suggested.
In the 1918 Irish Convention, which was representative of all creeds and classes, there was no mention of the need for any such words. When the Government of Ireland Act appeared in this House first as a Bill, the words were not in it, and the Bill went through this House of Commons without such a provision appearing. In the House of Lords, at the very last stage, the Earl of Wicklow moved an Amendment which is now incorporated in the Act. The Government resisted it, and they resisted it when it came back to the Commons. Due to the exigencies of Parliamentary time, the need to get "he Measure on the Statute Book and the need for compromise all along the line, it was finally incorporated in the Bill.
The very restrictive nature of these words, "to take property without compensation", has resulted in a tremendous body of most interesting litigation in the United States, where the words are less restrictive than in our case. I understand that lawyers differ enormously over the interpretation of the words "take" and "property". I have a whole series of examples of litigation in the United States, but one or two cases are interesting. In 1905, there was an ordinance prohibiting hoardings more than 8 ft. above the ground. It is obvious that the effect of the ordinance is to deprive the landowner of the ordinary use for a lawful business purpose of a portion of his land. In MacDermot v. Seattle, in 1933, the plaintiff had a barber's shop which he kept open until 11 p.m. An ordinance which

ordered it to be closed at 6 p.m. was held to be a taking of property.
There are many other examples. In Hanker v. New York, in 1898, the right to practise medicine was recognised as a valuable property right. Sometimes it has gone the other way. In Lewis K. Liggett Company v. Baldridge, in 1928, in which the United States Supreme Court considered a Pennsylvanian statute forbidding a corporation to own a pharmacy, the statute excepted from the prohibition the pharmacy belonging to the company before the Act came into force. The litigation concerned a pharmacy subsequently acquired by the company, yet the Act was held void as an improper deprivation of property. The case which went the other way was The General Box Company v. the United States, in which the Supreme Court held on the facts in that case that the destruction of the petitioner's timber was not a taking by the United States for which the Fifth Amendment required compensation.
In this long list of cases the Supreme Court was never unanimous; there was always a difference of opinion. We are, therefore, faced with a narrow restriction in the Government of Ireland Act over which lawyers bitterly disagree about interpretation, and, consequently, it is impossible for the Government of Northern Ireland to embark on the sort of legislation we have here for slum clearance and development without the fear of very long and cumbersome litigation. There has already been quite a lot of such litigation. There are several cases cited, such as O.D. Cars and Others, which have gone to the House of Lords. The House of Lords can only decide on one particular case and under one particular set of circumstances. If we were to fear that there would be a continuous stream of this kind of litigation, we would make no advance in the sort of development which is required.
I think that there is no fear of the Government of Northern Ireland putting legislation before Parliament at Stormont which would be onerous on the individual. There is no suggestion that that Government would go in for wholesale expropriation. The 52 members of the Government of Northern Ireland represent the people of Northern


Ireland, a very independent type of people who are not in the least likely to sit by and see the rights of the individual subordinated to any undue degree to those of the State. I am sure that this House of Commons, which determines the extent of the powers, can safely leave it to the Parliament of Northern Ireland to ensure that no undue or unfair use is made of the powers. It would be intolerable if Parliament here were to say, "We do not think the Parliament of Northern Ireland can be trusted in this respect," and I hope that that will not be said.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that the House will pass it and will extend the powers. I endorse what the right hon. and learned Member for Newport said, namely, that if there is any other power which should be extended we ought to examine it carefully. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), at the beginning of his remarks, referred to the subject of consultation with the people of Northern Ireland prior to introducing legislation of this nature. It was not my intention to talk about proportional representation, but, if the people of Northern Ireland were represented in this House by some method of proportional representation, so that we could be satisfied that all shades of opinion were adequately represented, I should feel happier about accepting the view which he expressed. I will return in a few moments to the subject of consultation with the people of Northern Ireland.
At first sight, the Bill would seem to be primarily concerned with the administration of justice. However, on examination, I think it is clear that it raises some matters of constitutional importance. I do not suggest for a moment that the administration of justice is not very important, but a distinction can be made between legislation dealing with the administration of justice and legislation which involves constitutional changes.
The Solicitor-General pointed out that the Bill was divided into three parts:

the administration of justice, the enlargement of legislative powers with regard to matters not relating to the Supreme Court, and miscellaneous provisions. Another breakdown would be to point out that the first twelve Clauses deal with the judiciary, while Clauses 13, 14 and 15 have no direct bearing on the judiciary, but are concerned really with town planning involving constitutional considerations. I should have thought that it might have been wiser to have two separate Bills, but I merely put that forward as my own point of view.
I do not propose to discuss every Clause in the Bill. I should be very unpopular if I were to do so. I hope that the Solicitor-General, or Minister who winds up the debate, will reply to the inquiry as to why the right of appeal to the House of Lords is to be limited.
On Clause 8, which sets up the Supreme Court Rules Committee, I notice that the Lord Chief Justice is to be Chairman of the Committee and that
The powers of the committee may be exercised by the chairman thereof and not less than four other members thereof of whom two are judges of the Supreme Court.
It would seem to follow that three members out of five may be judges, which, I should have thought, was rather overloading the Committee with judges.
May I say, in passing, that I welcome Clause 17, which gives power to pass laws to prevent unnecessary suffering to horses exported from Northern Ireland?
My main object in rising is to direct certain observations specifically to Clauses 13 and 14. By these Clauses Amendments are introduced to the Northern Ireland constitution, and particular reference is made to Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and to Article 16 of the Articles of Agreement of the treaty between Great Britain and Ireland.

Captain Orr: Would the hon. Member accept that all the legislation passed in this House since the Act of 1920 is an alteration to the constitution?

Mr. Wade: To a greater or lesser degree that may be so, but we have here a specific amendment of the constitution based on the treaty between this country and Northern Ireland.
A word about Clause 14, which the right hon. and learned Member for


Newport (Sir F. Soskice) seemed to regard as reasonable but which struck me forcibly. May I read it, as it is a short Clause:
The restriction imposed by subsection (1) of section five of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, on the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws that precludes it from making a law so as directly or indirectly to take any property without compensation is hereby abolished.
That seems rather a sweeping Clause and is clearly a constitutional amendment It may well be that there are arguments of administrative convenience in favour of this change in the law, but, nevertheless, a general principle is involved, and one would expect the whole subject to be very fully considered in Northern Ireland before the British Parliament was asked to pass a Bill amending the constitution in this way.
I notice that there has been no such full consideration. I take the point which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South made, but I am not entirely satisfied with the view which he put forward. Perhaps I may quote from a memorandum which has been sent to me by those who are somewhat critical of the Bill:
Without any public discussion in Northern Ireland, without any public inquiry, without hearing the views of any interested body of opinion, this Bill was presented in the House of Lords. During its passage the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops met the Lord Chancellor, but apart from this no body of opinion from Northern Ireland has been consulted so far as is known. It is doubtful whether many Members at Westminster know much of the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, or even realise that Northern Ireland has a written constitution which has within it those written safeguards so long cherished in many countries, in particular, the United States".
May I quote from another memorandum? Sometimes quotations enable one to abbreviate one's speech. Referring to the amendment to Section 5, it reads:
Section 5 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, expressly prohibited the Parliament of Northern Ireland from making any law so as, either directly or indirectly, to take any property without compensation. A similar prohibition is contained in almost every written constitution, the most notable being the 5th and the 14th amendments to the American Constitution. All the Commonwealth countries have such a prohibition.
I have had no opportunity to check whether the last statement is correct.
Clause 14 of the present Bill proposes to abolish this restriction so far as Northern

Ireland is concerned, and this proposal is made without anyone in this country—except, presumably, a few in Government circles—being aware of what is happening.
I will not express my views on the advantages or disadvantages of written constitutions, although having been brought up in this country I am inclined to favour an unwritten constitution. But the fact is that Northern Ireland has a written constitution, and having regard to the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, that may well be advantageous. The important point is that any amendment should be considered with very great care both in Northern Ireland and in the British Parliament.
As to the merits of the case—I am still referring to Clause 14—I gather that the objection to the existing law is that legislation introduced in the Northern Ireland Parliament and passed into law may be subsequently challenged if it is found to be contrary to Section 5 of the Act of 1920 and that it is possible for legislative provisions to be declared void after they have been in operation for some time. I see that that may give—and on occasion has given—rise to some difficulties. On the other hand, an advantage of the existing provisions of the Act of 1920 is that legislation has to be carefully examined when it is introduced to ensure that it is not ultra vires to the constitution.
In other words, it is necessary to ensure that legislation does not contain provisions which would involve taking property compulsorily without compensation. That is the point. If there are practical difficulties, I should have thought that some more modest amendment could have been introduced to overcome these difficulties without abolishing the safeguards contained in Section 5 of the 1920 Act.
I have read the whole of the debate in another place, in which the Lord Chancellor stated that he had received assurances. It would be out of order to quote the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. E. G. Willis: No. He spoke for the Government.

Mr. Wade: I stand corrected, but I will not burden the House with the full quotation.
The Lord Chancellor said that he was satisfied that the Parliament of Northern


Ireland had no intention of introducing confiscatory legislation. But it is not clear whether he is aware that the Northern Ireland Parliament knew nothing whatever, or very little, about the proposal to amend the constitution, and that the general public in Northern Ireland appeared to know nothing about it. Therefore, how can he be satisfied and what exactly were the assurances given?
May I be allowed one last quotation—from a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and I believe the only Liberal Member, Miss Murnaghan, who writes to me:
Clause 14 of the Northern Ireland Bill, if it goes through in its present form, will empower the Northern Ireland Parliament to ignore the property rights of the citizen if it sees fit to do so. It is by no means inconceivable that future protests in our Parliament against some confiscatory legislation will be met by the argument that the purpose of Clause 14 was to permit such legislation. A Government, under pressure to carry out some public improvement work, but lacking the necessary funds, might well succumb to this open invitation to take property without compensation.
It may well be that there is no such intention, but there is a distinction between introducing legislation which does not involve any breach of the existing constitution and removing a Clause which is already written into the constitution. That is the point. I do not think that anyone would object to legislation enabling important public work to be carried out; I certainly would not object. But it is reasonable to ask that adequate safeguards should be maintained, particularly in view of the fact that these were considered to be of real importance when the constitution of 1920 was drawn up.
Turning to Clause 13, much of the discussion on this part of the Bill has turned on the effect on religious and educational bodies. As I understand it, this Clause removes certain restrictions on the acquisition of property of religious and educational bodies and the object—a very worthy and proper object—is to enable new housing and slum clearance to be carried out and to permit the development or redevelopment of land and property in Northern Ireland. I see no objection to that in principle.
As I have said, I have read the debate in another place and I am aware of the

Amendment which was introduced there to satisify the religious denominations. I have still some doubts in my mind whether that Amendment is entirely satisfactory. I should have liked to see some assurance that where property is taken compulsorily there will be both compensation and the offer of alternative accommodation. That is important to religious bodies. However, that can be considered in Committee.
In any case, I suggest that there should be provisions, unless these are already in existence—perhaps I may be advised on this—first, that an inquiry must be held whenever there is an application for a vesting order; secondly, that the results of such an inquiry should be made public; and, thirdly, that there should be a right of appeal.
I think that these are reasonable requests, but the main point I would make is that which I made at the outset and which was the reason for my rising to take part in this debate, that where there are amendments to the Constitution I would prefer to see them dealt with in a separate Bill, but if they are to be incorporated in this Bill we must be satisfied that there are proper safeguards against any possibilities of abuse.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: If I were to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) in all the points he has put forward I should be carried very much further than I intend to go in my remarks today, but there are just two matters on which I would say a word.
First, he made great play with this being substantially a constitution amendment Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) made the point, very fairly I thought, that over a period of years we in Northern Ireland have had to come to this House to get amendments to the constitution of Northern Ireland, and every one of those Measures was in effect a constitutional Bill.
With particular reference to Clause 14, which relates to Section 5 of the Act of 1920, and abolishes the prohibition on making laws for taking property without compensation, the House may be interested to know that it has been necessary to come to this House over the


last forty years to get enabling legislation. This has been necessary to clear up the restrictions on the institution of certain proceedings under the Truck Acts, the working of minerals in connection with atomic energy, the destruction of diseased bees, and the abolition of certain anachronistic rules of inheritance. Perhaps the Liberal Party may have some special interest in the destruction of diseased bees. However, I think that the point is fairly made that these are all day-to-day problems which do arise and which, I think all parties in this House recognise, come within the legitimate function of Government.
The second of the hon. Member's two points I would comment on was about the Amendment to Clause 13 which was accepted in another place, and relates to slum clearance. I must say that I myself have some doubts as to these amendments. Lord Silkin said in another place that it might well be that the concessions have gone too far and might prejudice the drive by Belfast Corporation to provide better houses for the people living in that area. Time will show. As has been mentioned, there are some 200 denominations existing in Northern Ireland and there is a wide variety—I shall not give any examples—of them, and they own many small church halls. These will all be protected, and if in respect of one such hall a denomination were to dig in its feet and refuse to negotiate, then a whole housing development scheme could be prejudiced. I must say that those who in another place pressed the Government on that Amendment will bear a very heavy responsibility indeed if it is found that, due to their efforts, our slum clearance scheme is prejudiced.

Mr. Wade: Perhaps I may make my personal position clear. I am not entirely happy about the Amendment accepted in another place. As I said, if there had been provision for alternative accommodation to be provided as well as compensation, I would have been content.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I merely make the point that it is one of the accidents of history that this problem has arisen. Section 5 of the 1920 Act provides certain exceptions whereby the Government can take property, for instance, for railways, sewerage, roads. For such purposes there is already power compul-

sorily to acquire this type of property. In that Section the term "public utility" appears. I understand that the Northern Ireland Government have been told by their legal advisers that those words "public utility" are not wide enough to cover the acquisition of property for slum clearance. That is one of the unfortunate things about the drafting. One sees it looking backwards at the drafting forty years afterwards. I really feel that this whole matter has been blown up as very much a storm in a teacup by people who, perhaps, I say very respectfully, are not altogether sympathetic to Northern Ireland and who use this merely as a stick with which to beat Ulster.
However, I pass from those points, which are not my main reason for taking part in this debate, to say that generally I welcome the provisions of this Bill, and I wish to deal very briefly with Clause 8 concerning the Supreme Court Rules Committee. In passing I must, of course, declare an interest as a solicitor in Belfast affected adversely or otherwise by the rules of the Supreme Court. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be glad to know that generally speaking the provisions of Clause 8 have been welcomed by the legal profession in Northern Ireland, and with the profession I would wish to pay tribute to the Government for these reforms and to the Sheil Committee for the hard work it has done.
There are, however, two points about which, I must advise my hon. and learned Friend, dissatisfaction does begin. On the first I would refer to page 5 of the Sheil Committee's Report where it is suggested that there should be created a body to be called the Rules and Administration Committee which should be ancillary to the Supreme Court Rules Committee.
I must try and avoid confusing the House with these two committees. The Sheil Committee suggested that the Rules and Administration Committee should be comprised of officials of the High Court, representatives of the Law Society and representatives of the Bar Council and presided over, perhaps, by a retired civil servant or a retired judge. The important point in this idea is that in the Rules and Administration Committee the main burden of work should be done by Supreme Court offi-


cials, to whom also I would pay tribute, because they are in day-to-day touch with the working of these Rules.
I think that it is widely accepted in the legal profession in Northern Ireland that the Supreme Court Rules which came into effect in 1936, very much earlier than the Rules under which one works in England, are now in a really absolutely dreadful mess. If my hon. and learned Friend would care to consult the "red book", as we call it, as distinct from the "white book" in England, he will find that pasted into virtually every page there are emendations, things which have been added, things which have had to be crossed out, and the whole thing is very much a dog's breakfast at the moment. The feeling has been expressed by both branches of the profession that a major revision of our Rules is necessary.
The value of the suggested Rules and Administrative Committee is well expressed by the Evershed Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure in its Second Interim Report, page 49, where the same idea was envisaged. The Report said:
Our main difficulty in regard to the existing 'Rules Committee'"—
this of course is in England—
is that H.M. Judges have not generally speaking a close knowledge of the Rules or their working nor can they properly be expected to devote their time and attention to examination of the working of the Rules and their relationship inter se. It seems to us that the existing Committee"—
I stress the words—
though impressive in point of distinction is somewhat far removed from the workaday affairs of administration of the Rules.
This is very much my feeling.
I would emphasise that the Committee which I envisage, and about which I shall move Amendments in Committee, should help the new Supreme Court Rules Committee. It should, of course, have to report to the Supreme Court Rules Committee and everything should have to be sent to, approved by or sent back by the Supreme Court Rules Committee, which I believe must remain dominant in these matters.
The second question, about which I am troubled and about which the Incorporated Law Society of Northern

Ireland is also unhappy, concerns Clause 8 (3) which says—and I am now coming back to the Supreme Court Rules Committee:
The powers of the committee may be exercised by the chairman thereof and not less than four other members thereof of whom two are judges of the Supreme Court.
I have great respect for our judges and I mean no disrespect when I say that this provision, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West has already mentioned, will give rise to great practical difficulty in a major revision of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
In Northern Ireland there are only five judges, yet this Supreme Court Rules Committee cannot work unless the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges are present. When one thinks of illness, of absence on assize, or of busy judges engaged in other work, I think that the Solicitor-General will see that this may give rise to enormous practical difficulty and may hold up the urgent revision of our Rules. I suggest that the words
of whom two are judges of the Supreme Court.
should be left out. I feel that in all cases the Lord Chief Justice must remain in a dominant position and all Rules must have his approval.
If one considers this matter in relation to England it should be noted that there are some fifty judges and only seven are on the Supreme Court Rules Committee. The Committee could proceed with work even if the Lord Chancellor was the only judge present. In theory it is not necessary for the other seven judges to be present for the Committee to function.
I apologise to the House for having mentioned these two technical points at such great length. I shall table Amendments in Committee dealing with both matters and I understand that these have the support of nine of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland, together with several other representatives from English constituencies. I can assure the House that the Incorporated Law Society is most unhappy on these two points. Rather than that the time of the Committee should be wasted, perhaps it would be possible for the Solicitor-General or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to meet


some of us in advance to discuss these Amendments and to help us in our worries. I welcome this Bill and hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading.

5.5 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): We have been discussing this afternoon the results of events that took place forty years ago, and forty years ago no one, certainly not my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who has listened to so much of this debate and who played so prominent a part in those events, would have thought for one moment that the legislation which we are now seeking to amend would have lasted so long in the truncated form in which it has come down to us, because the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was intended to cover the whole island and to be a transitional Measure until legislation could be devised which would ensure final and permanent legislation for the whole of that island. I could not help wondering what must have been going through the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford as he cast his thoughts back to the troubled events of that time.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) asked some pertinent questions on the Bill. We are grateful for his welcome in principle to the Bill and we are perfectly happy to accept his suggestion that we should seek to look at it not through our eyes, but through the eyes of Northern Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's first suggestion related to the apparent restriction of appeals to the House of Lords and even to the Court of Appeal. In empowering these restrictions—and the Bill only empowers them and does not impose them—what we have in mind, and what the Northern Ireland Government have in mind, is to equate the position, and not more than that, as regards appeals in and from Northern Ireland, with this position obtaining in Great Britain. It is well known that in Great Britain there are many circumstances in which all parties think it right that appeals should be limited.
This, in many cases, is due to the fact that successive appeals are a great

burden on the poor litigant and it must be particularly remembered that in Northern Ireland there is no legal aid as we have here. Therefore, it might be most oppressive for a powerful litigant to haul an opponent less well endowed with funds through successive appeals in certain cases. I think that it was accepted by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport that there must be some cases where there should be normally a restriction upon the right of appeal.
It will be found that these were investigated in Great Britain by the Ever-shed Committee, which found that an unlimited right of appeal is not necessarily an advantage to a litigant. There can be no doubt that appeals constitute an important factor in the cost of litigation, and the Committee recommended that certain restrictions on the right of appeal should be kept. The restrictions have varied from time to time. There was at one time an absolute bar on the right of appeal on questions of fact from the county court in this country. This has been somewhat modified as jurisdiction has been widened, but there is still a considerable bar on appeals from the county court and there is in many cases an absolute bar on appeals from such courts as the divisional courts when they are sitting as appellate courts.
It was thought right that the Parliament of Northern Ireland should have some sort of right to legislate for what is eminently a domestic matter for them, even though appeals to the House of Lords are in somewhat different case. But they have no intention of doing any more than restricting the right of appeal to the House of Lords purely in the same sort of cases as we do here.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the new Rules Committee, which follows one of the recommendations of the Sheil Report. He said it seemed surprising to ham that the Rules Committee would be able in certain circumstances to override existing statutory provisions. That is so of our Rules Committee. But there is this safeguard—Which will certainly be provided for the Northern Irish Rules Committee as it is here—that it is subject to the negative Resolution procedure of this House. I remember moving a Prayer,


about three years ago, to annul some rules of court by our Rules Committee. I think it was the first time it had ever been done, and it was considered somewhat lèse-majesté, but it succeeded, and the Committee had to take them back and think again. That is the sort of safeguard that we have if the Rules Committee of Northern Ireland seeks too readily—I do not for one moment suggest that it would—to override the existing statutory provisions, or to embark on a scheme of wild reform.
The criticism of the new Rules Committee has, on the whole, been the other way. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) suggested, with some urgency, that the Rules Committee will be too slow, too eminent and too solid and will not get on with the job as it should. He has given notice that he will move Amendments in Committee seeking to put some ginger into it, and has suggested that he and his hon. Friends, who have the backing of the Law Society, should meet us to discuss this before the Committee stage. Since he has made this suggestion, perhaps all I need say for the moment is that we willingly accept the suggestion if only to ease the passage of the Bill through Committee as far as possible.
Then comes the right hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism, which was echoed by other speakers, that some of the difficulties relating to Clauses 13, 14 and 15, which I think have been largely ironed out now—at least one hopes so—could have been obviated if there had been prior consultation before the Bill was introduced. That was very much the burden of the song of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). I thought the constitutional position was admirably put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). It is very important to keep distinct the constitutional arrangements that there are vis-à-vis the relationship between Northern Ireland and Westminster and those between the provinces of Canada and their Federal Government or the States of the United States and the Federal Government and Congress. They are not at all the same.
One difference—it is a very important one—is that we at Westminster retain the full power at all times to legislate

for anything to do with Northern Ireland. There is in this case a duplication of power which there is not in the case, for example, of the provinces of Canada or the States of the America and other federal constitutions. There are many other differences, but that is a very important thing to remember because it shows the importance of having with us—we recognise their importance today and on other days—Members directly elected from Northern Irish constituencies to this House. They are the symbol of the fact that we continue to retain full power to legislate on all matters affecting Northern Ireland.
Therefore, it would be unconstitutional, unprecedented and, I submit, quite improper if there were formal consultations with the Parliament of Northern Ireland before a Bill of this sort was introduced, and we do not propose to go into any innovations of that type
As to the other matters connected with Clauses 13, 14 and 15, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made a pregnant interjection while my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was speaking. He wondered whether or not the lesser word "development" might not be substituted for "use" in Clause 13 (1, b). The objection to that, in a brief word, is that what we wish to empower the Northern Ireland Government to do is not merely to control the possible change of use but to control the actual abuse. Many of the things that social conscience and public legislation now require are not development at all but mere abuse of an existing practice.
For example, overcrowding is not a change of use in the technical sense of the word, but an abuse of an existing use. Noxious trades may not come within any change in the use classes category and so constitute development, but, nevertheless, they may be an abuse. Smoke control and such things are not development, but an abuse of an existing user.
That is why the more restrictive word "development" is probably inappropriate even though it would, of course, be nice to be able to meet the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure that the fears that he has come from the most worthy of motives. But I will assure him that there is no intention at all to


do anything like forcibly changing the use of a building put to religious purposes except in so far as it might become an abuse in the way that I have mentioned. We shall no doubt debate this again in Committee, but my preliminary warning to him is that I think it will be difficult to find any other form of words which will not unduly restrict the Government of Northern Ireland in pursuing the social legislation which they must have.
The hon. Member may have heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, who suggested that the Amendments made in the House of Lords have already gone too far. I should have thought that probably the balance had been fairly well struck. I must, therefore, tell him that if we were to give way any further on this point, we should probably run into equal opposition from the other side.

Mr. Mellish: Speaking for those for whom I am privileged to speak, I should like to say that we are greatly obliged to the hon. Member and his Department and those responsible in Northern Ireland for the changes that they have made. All that we wanted was the assurance which the hon. Gentleman has now given. I put up the word that I used in my interjection merely to provide a basis on which he could give the assurance, which I understand we shall get in writing anyway from Stormont. We are very happy about it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That is a very happy consequence. We are all greatly obliged to the hon. Member and others for the work that they have done.
There were two matters which it was suggested should have been included in the Bill, but which were not the problems relating to the adoption of children and to the reciprocal enforcement of probation orders. Both of these matters could have been introduced into the Bill. We were, however, anxious to keep it as short as possible, because it is a lengthy Bill as it is, and in both cases we have hopes that we shall have, as it were, functional Bills in the not too distant future which will deal with these subjects from a United Kingdom point of view.
We are hoping to have a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Ingleby

Committee, and that will be a good opportunity to deal with the anomaly relating to the adoption of children. In the same way the probation service and probation orders are likely to come before us generally in the not too distant future, and we will do something there.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the arrangements for reducing the number of jurymen in civil cases. Seven, of course, was the figure that we had in this country during the war, not only for civil cases but also for criminal cases, and there are other parts of the British Commonwealth where the figure is the same today. We think that when "here is the shortage of jurymen that there is, this is about the best figure which we are likely to be able to find for civil cases.
I have not dealt with all the points, though I hope that I have dealt with the major ones, raised in this important debate. We have met in a constructive spirit and I hope that we shall go to the Committee stage retaining that constructive spirit. We have been warned of the points that we are likely to meet, and I hope that we shall be able to agree. On the principle of giving the Northern Ireland Government greater power, particularly because of the irritation that it causes this House when we have to come back year after year for amendments on what appear to be trifling matters of law, though they be of great importance to those concerned, we have had a warm welcome. It may be of satisfaction for hon. Members to remember that in future we shall not be troubled in the House so frequently if we pass the Bill into law because then we shall not have to deal with the trifling matters which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North mentioned, such as diseases in bees and other matters relating to the stealing or violation of wrecks around the coast of Ulster. Therefore, I hope that we can get on as fast as possible.

Mr. Ede: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, could he deal with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) about the qualification for jurors in Northern Ireland? Has the information


for which my right hon. and learned Friend asked been yet obtained?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is correct, and no doubt we "hall be hearing a good deal about it in Committee. I have to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance. In broad terms, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that is the qualification in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend with regard to certain matters, and empower Her Majesty in Council to amend with regard to others, the law concerning the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(i) remuneration and allowances to a person who sits and acts as a judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal or High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland for an absent judge or in the place of one whose place has become vacant or sits and acts as an additional judge of either of those Courts;
(ii) remuneration and allowances to a person (other than a judge of either of those Courts) who sits and acts as a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland;
(iii) remuneration to a person appointed to act as secretary to the committee constituted by the said Act of the present Session for the purpose of making rules for the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland;
(iv) any expenses incurred by the said committee; and
(v) any increase attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable by way of pensions and other benefits under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1960, compensation under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to existing Irish officers, or

terminable annuities under section eight of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871;
(b) the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable thereout under section eleven of the said Act of 1871.—[Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd April], That the Clause (Channel Islands and Isle of Man), proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: We return to the Sea Fish Industry Bill the proceedings on which have been very long and protracted, though I must say that I think this is the longest interruption which we have had of any one speech. I started this speech on 3rd April, and stopped at seven o'clock on that day, and after this very long time I have very little more to add to what I then said. I think that it must be an all-time record for an interruption.
The proposed new Clause makes considerable changes in the law. As I said when the Parliamentary Secretary was introducing the Clause, I thought that he was a little peremptory with it because what we are doing here is to bring into line with what we have done in the rest of Great Britain, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. We must remember that in this context we are extending our control not only over our own territorial waters but to waters outside the territorial limits.
As I said on 3rd April, it seemed to me that what we were doing in the new Clause was to apply this law to these other islands. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that this had come about because the Government had been requested to do so. I asked the hon. Gentleman if he would be a little more forthcoming with the House and would tell us who made the request, because it seemed a little strange to us that certain parts of the country should


come along and say, "There is not sufficient control over us. We want you to insert a new Clause in the Bill so as to extend your control over the waters in which our fishermen may fish." What I was suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary was, in fact, that the Ministry had forgotten all about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and, indeed, that we had got into the position that we had thought of in regard to foreign fishermen, because when we introduce this control it can apply only to the British fishing fleet. We shall then have no power over the foreign fishermen who come into the waters except in the territorial waters.
It was because of that position that I raised this question on 3rd April. I am certain that the House would be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary could make plain to us whether our interpretation of the new Clause is correct or not, and, in so doing, he might be able to tell us exactly who asked for these Regulations to be introduced at this very late stage in the proceedings of the Bill.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): During the interruption of this debate I have tried to compose a few notes which I hope will answer the hon. Gentleman's points and will show him that this Clause, as I originally claimed, is a satisfactory and proper addition to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman reproached me with being rather over-brief when I introduced the Clause, and I hope that now he will not reproach me for being too long. He has asked me a number of questions and I think that, in fairness to him and to the House, I should try to reply to them.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern over subsection (2) since this subsection relates to additional powers which the Bill provides for regulating fishing in various ways outside our territorial waters, including fishing for salmon or migratory trout inside or outside the three-mile limit. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his fears are unfounded. The subsection is not here because of the salmon and trout provisions and if the powers are ever used the Regulations on salmon and trout fishing will not be the likely cause.

The powers with which Clauses 10 and 11 deal derive from earlier Statutes and the powers in these two Statutes cover only the United Kingdom. This means that they do not permit Orders to be made prohibiting fishing by vessels registered in the Islands or requiring the registering of such vessels.
But the 1959 Act gave power to extend both the prohibition and the licensing power to the Channel Islands by Order in Council. No such Order in Council has ever been made, so at present there is no power to make a prohibition or a licensing Order affecting the Channel Islands. If it became desirable to do so, it could be possible only after making an Order in Council, and, of course, such an Order would be made not only after consultation with the Islands but also with their agreement. That is the present position.
5.30 p.m.
Now I come to the effects of subsection (2), which is the main subsection of the new Clause. Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill alter the powers to make prohibition and licensing Orders in various countries. For example, the power to prohibit fishing can in some cases be exercised without having to refer to an international convention. Other changes relate to particular species caught by particular methods during particular times.
Subsection (2) provides that if an Order in Council ever were made extending the powers to make a prohibition or licensing Order to the Islands, that Order in Council could extend the powers as they have been amended by the Bill, and not merely the powers in the original legislation. I think that every hon. Member would agree that that is common sense. It may never be necessary to make such an Order, but if it were, and the Islands so wished—and I stress that—the possibility of doing so is there.
All it would mean is that Orders would then be made covering the Islands and vessels registered there, and that courts there could then prosecute offenders in the same way as can the courts in the United Kingdom. In order to make sure that the Islands courts would be in the same position, subsection (2) also provides power of prosecution under Clause 13. This


means that a fine can be imposed instead of the count ordering the forfeiture of fish.
I am sure that the House will agree that, if we are to have power to regulate fishing in waters around the United Kingdom, there is reason, on similar grounds, for similar power to exist concerning waters around the Islands. Again, if there is to be power to regulate fishing for United Kingdom vessels on the high seas, it is reasonable to take a similar power to regulate fishing by vessels registered in the Islands.
It should be noted, in passing, that there is no salmon near the Channel Islands, and that it is a long way from the Channel Islands and, for that matter, the Isle of Man, to districts off the North-East Coast where drift nesting has been taking place. I hope that I have been able to show that these powers do not spring from any salmon controlling purpose.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me—I am rather innocent about these matters—why Clause 12 of the Bill is excluded in the reference in subsection (2, b)?

Mr. Vane: Clause 12 covers landings and these are entirely the responsibility of the Islands Governments. That is why we excluded it from the Bill.

Mr. Willis: I asked my question because it was pointed out in Standing Committee that their fish could be landed here.

Mr. Vane: For the purpose of this new Clause we did not want to presume to legislate over a matter which is entirely the responsibility of the Islands, which are controlling the landings of fish at their own shores.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) wants me to refer to subsection (1) again. I think that it is quite plain. I know, however, that he would like me to say something about timing. He asked why this new Clause did not appear in the Bill at an earlier stage, and suggested that it was because we had forgotten about this matter. It is a fair question and I shall be frank.
The final draft of the Clause dealing with increased fines appeared only

during a late stage in the drafting of the Bill and, therefore, the Islands could not be made aware of it until a later stage than some of the other parties concerned. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been proper consultations with the Island authorities. It might have been possible to introduce this Clause while the Bill was in Standing Committee, but, bearing in mind that the Amendments to the Northern Ireland Clause had started very late in the day—for which we are not blameworthy—it seemed better to introduce this new Clause at a time when we would not need to amend it further, as might well have happened in Committee.
I now turn to forms of consultation. There is a distinction between the provisions in subsection (1) of the Clause and the provisions of subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (1) extends the United Kingdom legislation with which it is concerned direct to the Channel Islands from the start. That is the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883. When it was decided to increase penalties under that provision, the authorities in the Islands were asked formally whether they wished the increases to apply to their respective territories. In each case, the reply was a request that that should be done.
Subsections (2) and (3), which deal with the possible extension of the powers to make certain of our legislation apply to the Islands by Order in Council, are different in that they confer enabling powers, which could be exercised only if it were so decided by agreement between the United Kingdom and the Island authorities. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is the Home Office and not my right hon. Friend's Department which conducts consultations with the Channel Islands. There was consultation between different Departments and the different Islands and the Home Office concerning subsections (2) and (3), and it was agreed by all the Islands that the provisions of these two subsections would not only be appropriate but would also be welcome. I hope that the House will therefore agree that the new Clause should be added to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(WELFARE COMMITTEES.)

Port authorities may, after consultation with the Minister, make arrangements for the establishment of joint committees consisting of representatives of trawler owners, fish merchants and trade unions to consider matters affecting the welfare of workers in the industry including the provision of baths and canteens and other facilities.—[Captain Hewitson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain M. Hewitson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause is so tame and innocuous that the Minister must accept it. From time to time, he has made speeches in the fishing ports telling us how much he wants to see progress made in welfare in the ports. This Clause deals with welfare and the controversial aspects have been taken out of it. Originally, it included pensions, but that could be a controversial matter and it is not now in the Clause.
We are suggesting that baths should be provided similar to pit-head baths. There is one scheme in the country, run by a nationalised industry, which would be a model for our larger fishing ports. This is the Brecon Road. Gas Works. I am rather proud to mention these gas works and the welfare scheme there, because it was at that establishment that the union of which I have the honour to be national officer was originally formed one Sunday morning.
The gas works has also always been very progressive. It was the first in the country to have an eight-hour day in the gas industry. Today it has a welfare scheme with baths, changing rooms and drying rooms, which could be a model for industry throughout the country.
The Minister may argue that the difficulty in this tame Clause lies in the opening words "port authorities". He may say that there is a different authority in each fish landing area. In Hull, for instance, the port authority is British Railways, but at other places the authorities are different organisations. The argument will be that it will be difficult for port authorities, in consultation with the Minister, to start up welfare schemes.
I concede that difficulty immediately. The Minister may, and probably will, argue that the authority which is to develop a welfare scheme after proper

consultation should be the White Fish Authority, which has the powers within its present set-up, but so far the White Fish Authority has not done very much in this direction. The port authorities could be given powers by the Minister so that they could be transformed into something like the White Fish Authority, although I suppose that in areas like Hull, the British Transport Commission would dispute that. I am not very concerned about the actual wording of this new Clause, and if the Minister would say that he would have a look at it, and then, when the Bill goes to another place, he would insert something that would cover the interpretation of "authority", that would be acceptable.
At present, in every port we have a different authority, and in the provision of welfare facilities in the various ports different things happen in different ports. The National Dock Labour Board has control over several of our ports, and where that Board is in control welfare schemes are going ahead. On the other hand, in other ports, where different interests control each port, there is a variety of welfare provisions.
If I may now refer to the port which I have the honour to represent—and my constituency of Kingston upon Hull, West covers our largest fish landing port—the industrial relationships there are second to none in the country. I am now speaking solely of the landing section of the industry and not of the fishing sections. For the landing section, we now have a unified scheme of pensions. This scheme makes it possible for a man to receive £7 5s. a week on retiring, and if we add to that figure the State pension we see that it brings that man's income level up to the level of industrial incomes. This means that a man on retirement need not have to change his standard of living, but is able to carry on as he did before. Although the question of pensions has been withdrawn from this new Clause, this kind of scheme is something that we should like to see in fishing ports throughout the country.
5.45 p.m.
On the subject of canteens, which are also mentioned in the new Clause, by the end of this summer we shall have a model canteen in Hull which will be an


example to the whole country. Again, we Should like to see that kind of provision in all our fishing ports, and that is one of the reasons why we are asking that this Clause should be included in the Bill in order that the Minister may use has influence or give some directive to the fishing port authorities that welfare provisions should be brought up to a reasonable standard. In the fishing ports today, we find men working on the dockside in shocking conditions. I am now speaking of the landing section of the industry and not of the fishing section. The men working on the dock-side, in the fish houses and in the filleting of fish, are one of the finest types of workmen in the whole country.
Recently workers in factories have gone home because, they said, it was too cold for them to work. Last week, we had two warm days, and I think that it was somewhere in Lancashire where, according to what I read in the newspapers, people were going home because it was too warm to work in a factory. We do not find this sort of thing in the fish docks. We find men working in shocking climatic conditions, but we never hear of them going home, either because it is too cold or too hot to work. They are there, they do their job of work, and they are one of the finest types of men one could find in any section of industry in the whole country.
The industrial relationships between these workers and the employers are on a very high level indeed. Employers are prepared to do everything they possibly can to improve the welfare facilities for their workers. There are, however, several drawbacks. During the Committee stage of the Bill reference was made to the Transport Commission being the "dead hand" on the Hull docks. Of course, representatives of the Commission immediately replied, and we had a newspaper headline "Fish Docks 'Dead Hands' Charge Denied; B.T.C. Has Offered Sites for Welfare Facilities." When one remembers that the Hull docks are between ninety and a hundred years old, that some of the lavatories are ninety years old and that there has been no improvement in all those ninety years, that rather gives the Me to these local officials who are trying to Whitewash themselves.
Putting it mildly, these men are working in conditions that are not in the least pleasant, and all we are asking in the Clause is that the Minister should provide something extra. It is not asking anything extraordinary, because in industry today welfare schemes are regarded as one of the primary necessities. The fishing industry is one of our primary food producing industries and we ought to have the same facilities and welfare background which other industries have.
By the end of the summer, Hull will have a model canteen which will be an example not only to the fishing industry, but to industry generally. But is it not only Hull which needs such a canteen. Such facilities should be available in all the fishing ports. We feel that the Minister should give a directive or guidance to the fishing ports so that they go ahead with such welfare schemes.
In Hull, we are to have changing rooms where men can change out of their fish dock clothing into their walking-out clothes, leaving their work clothing in drying rooms for their next shift. As with other fishing ports, the old houses in Hull are being removed under slum clearance orders and men who used to live near the docks, and who had only to cross railway lines to reach their homes in the long industrial streets, now live on council estates three or four miles from where they work, and they have to travel home by public transport.
They start work at two o'clock in the morning, returning home between eight and ten o'clock in the morning. Anyone who has travelled on public transport with fish dock workers in their fish dock clothing will know that to do so is not very pleasant. The men have a pride in their appearance and do not want to meet people they know while they are still smelling "not so good". They want to have the opportunities, which workers in other industries have, of being able to have shower baths and changing rooms and drying rooms where they work so that they can travel home from work looking like other workers.
Knowing him as I do, and that he has gone to fish docks to see things for himself, I think that the Minister will be prepared to do everything he can to


assist the welfare schemes I have mentioned. I do not think that we are asking too much. Many factories which employ large numbers of women employ hairdressers at the plant so that the women can look reasonable when they leave work. All modern industries have facilities like shower baths and changing rooms.
Most industries are organised in large units, but the fishing industry consists of small units. Apart from areas like Grimsby, Hull and Aberdeen, there may be difficulties about providing some of the suggested facilities. But we must make a start somewhere. Industrial relations are one of the primary factors of industry today, because good industrial relations lead to a happy and contented industry.
We have also to face the fact that a rough industry like the fishing industry has difficulty about attracting young men. Although wages on the quay side are good and although conditions and relations are good in the industry, young men seek work elsewhere. They do so not because of the wages—we pride ourselves on the fact that our wages are as good as those in any other industry—but because there are better welfare facilities in other industries. When I speak of welfare facilities I am not concerned with setting up boxing teams—although we have some good boxing teams in Hull. I ought to say that now in case there is a reference to my black eye.
But we have plenty of room for greater welfare facilities. Can the Minister tell me what ambulance facilities there are on fish docks throughout the country? Speaking from memory, I do not think that there is an ambulance room on the Hull docks. When one considers the possibility of accident, not of major accidents as much as of the sort of accident to which men who work as filleters with sharp knives are prone, there ought to be ambulance facilities. Hull is the largest landing fish dock in the country and it is deplorable that it should not have such facilities. It is not that we do not want these facilities. We want them and we can get them. Industrial relationships among employers, trade unions and workers on the Hull dock are the best in the country.
We are not asking for any money. Once we get the go-ahead for our welfare schemes we will put them into operation. We are pushing at an almost open door, but we want something written into the Bill to give us the authority to go ahead with these welfare schemes. It may be wrong to suggest that the port authorities should make arrangements for what we want, and if this is the case I hope that the Minister will suggest who should be responsible for making them.
I know that the Minister agrees with the provision of welfare facilities. There is nothing controversial about this suggestion, and if the Minister could put forward suggestions to help us in what we want to achieve, we on this side of the House would give him every assistance in carrying out any plans he formulated. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us the go-ahead not only in Hull where we are progressive, but in all the fishing ports of the country.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) on his speech. He is a distinguished officer in an important union, and it is only natural that he should introduce a new Clause affecting the welfare of workers in our fishing ports. He moved a similar new Clause in Committee and received certain assurances from the Minister. As I have said, the new Clause affects the welfare of men in all our fishing ports, and although he has a black eye I am sure that all his constituents wish him well in his endeavours to write this provision into the Bill.
The new Clause is not mandatory. It merely asks that
Port authorities may, after consultation with the Minister, make arrangements for the establishment of joint committeees consisting of representatives of trawler owners, fish merchants and trade unions …
I believe that the Minister agrees with the principle of the new Clause, but I am not sure whether he will accept it. He may argue that arrangements exist for consultations to take place and that the various port authorities have power to make the necessary arrangements to improve welfare facilities in every port in the country. However, we await the Minister's reply and I am certain that


it will be sympathetic because, when a similar new Clause was moved in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary gave us a sympathetic reply and said that the Government would carefully consider the point raised in it if my hon. and gallant Friend undertook to withdraw it at that stage. Since then the Minister and his officials have looked at this matter again, and no doubt we will now be told the Government's intentions.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that this matter is vital to the fishing industry. This is a major Bill which will inject capital into the industry. We are subsidising the distant and near water fleets. We are trying to make the industry viable so that it will be able to stand on its feet within ten years. We are proposing to give subsidies to private industry. We are not opposing this idea. We are merely saying that there should be a certain quid pro quo, that if we help the employers to make the industry prosperous, then the men who work in it—some of whom are the constituents of my hon. and gallant Friend—should have their conditions improved, and by the provision of welfare amenities we can do something positive to improve them.
Developments in the fishing industry and in our ports must match the developments in welfare services in other industries. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the nationalised gas industry in his constituency and reminded the House of the facilities provided for the workers there. In the steel industry, in my constituency, amenities are provided for the workers, and one finds similar amenities in all the nationalised industries, and in many of the smaller ones, both private and publicly owned. We are merely suggesting that in this important industry, which is vital to the production of food for the nation, an industry which provides employment for thousands of men and women, amenities should be provided for the workers.
As my hon. and gallant Friend rightly said, there is the difficulty of deciding who is the responsible authority in each port. For example, in Hull the responsible port authority is the British Transport Commission. My hon. and gallant Friend criticised the Commission and quoted the reactions of local officials. I

do not know the facts, and it may be that my hon. and gallant Friend is right in what he said. I hope that his speech and today's debate, and, indeed, the debates in Committee, will encourage port authorities quickly to develop amenities and welfare facilities in the various ports. If there are any black spots they should be removed, and we hope that the Minister, by whatever action he proposes to take, will ensure that a new era is brought in.
It may be that power should be given to the White Fish Authority to act as the responsible port authority. There may, of course, be difficulties about doing this, but perhaps the White Fish Authority, in consultation with the B.T.C. or the Dock Labour Board, could make the arrangements required by my hon. and gallant Friend. We welcome the new Clause and trust that the Minister will ensure that the necessary action is taken to bring about the desired result.
The Clause does not mention pensions, but reference has been made to them. I am pleased to know that in Hull there is such a fine pension scheme and I agree that my hon. and gallant Friend's union, along with the employers, has worked out satisfactory arrangements to enable a man to have a pension of £7 5s. on retirement. If to this is added the State pension, it will mean that a worker's standards will not be reduced when he retires. We would like to see this idea extended to every port.
The Clause deals mainly with the provision of amenities, particularly canteen and washing facilities. We support these proposals and expect that the Minister's response will be favourable. We also hope that my hon. and gallant Friend's speech and his propaganda in Committee will have their effect on those port authorities who may be regarded as somewhat backward. The responsibilities of port authorities vary considerably. We know that the Minister is setting up a Commission to investigate the structure of our ports and harbour facilities, and it may well be that this new Committee of "three wise men" will look into the provision of welfare facilities in the various ports. We expect the Minister to respond favourably to this proposal.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): There is no difference between the two sides of the House about the worthiness of the sentiment which underlies the new Clause. Fishing is an arduous and exacting business, and we would all wish to see proper welfare facilities provided for those who earn their livings from the industry. But J do not think—and I hope that I shall be able to carry the hon. and galiant Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) with me on this—that the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill would get us any further.
What we are now discussing is the question of the facilities available at the major ports. One of the difficulties is that the docks are used by many different sections of the industry and, indeed, by different sections of the community at large. The requirements of the various sections are not always the same. There are mainly three classes of worker in the fishing industry. There are the fishing vessel crews, the dock labourers engaged in unloading the vessels, and the employers of merchants engaged in handling the fish. I know that the hon. and gallant Member realises as well as anyone that the needs of these three classes vary considerably.
The right way to proceed is to have discussions and negotiations about the provision of proper facilities through the normal contacts between the employers and unions in each section. As the hon. and gallant Member has suggested, there may be a need for some stimulus to get matters moving. This is probably what underlies the new Clause, but in my submission this is not the correct way to proceed. I agree that some stimulus is necessary to get things under way, and especially some machinery—which the hon. and gallant Member is probably groping for in the new Clause—to bring together all the interests concerned.
Nevertheless, in my opinion it would not be right to place the responsibility for this upon the port authorities. It is not primarily their concern, except that they will have to be brought in in most cases, especially where premises are needed on their land. They will then have to be included in the deliberations and discussions. But the status of port authorities differs from port to port, and I am sure that it would be wiser to rely

upon ways which can be fittted to the circumstances existing at the various ports rather than to place this duty upon port authorities generally. In certain circumstances it might not be the port authorities Who would initiate action.
When this matter was discussed in Committee we promised to consider whether the White Fish Authority could play some part in this work. We have considered the matter and have also considered the problem generally, and we have satisfied ourselves that the Authority has the power to bring together the interests concerned. It is, therefore, in a position to take the initiative when one is needed. Furthermore, during our discussions in Committee the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) suggested that the small group which I have asked to look at the major ports should pay careful attention to this problem.
This is being done. The team has already visited Grimsby, and is at Fleetwood this week. I understand that in Grimsby canteen, first-aid and medical (facilities are adequate, and that the National Dock Labour Board provides changing and drying room facilities for registered dock workers, and is proposing to extend these facilities, but that there is no suitable changing and drying accommodation for filleters working in the market. Washing facilities are limited. These are only the immediate findings of the team, and after further consideration it will get in touch with the organisations concerned. I know that we shall be able to count on the active co-operation of the White Fish Authority and the port authority.
Since the team has not visited other ports, I am not in a position to comment upon them, but I have asked it to pay special attention to this matter when it visits other ports. I fully appreciate the interest of the hon. and gallant Member in the existing conditions, which have prompted him to move the new Clause. I do not know When the team will reach Hull, but Sir Robert Letch, the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Division, has said that he will make a special visit to see what can be done. In general, it would not be right to insert this provision in the Bill, legislating either for the White Fish Authority or the port authority to be responsible for this matter.
We agree with the sentiment behind the Clause, and we are satisfied that the White Fish Authority already has power to deal with the matter. We do not need an amendment of the existing legislation to this effect. I am sure that we shall be able to see considerable progress in the matter. We have had a good deal of discussion, both in Committee and on Report. I believe that what I have suggested is the right way to tackle the problem, and in the light of my remarks I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will be willing to ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I detected a slight lack of urgency in the Minister's speech, which I put down partly to the fact—I do not say this offensively—that his visits to the fishing ports have been brief, and, as far as first-hand knowledge is concerned, took place in the middle of the summer. Like Hull, Grimsby was flattered when he paid it a visit last August. It is true that the mayor, whom he omitted to visit, was less flattered, but we are glad that he saw the port, on a fine summer's day.
But the occasional visitor on a day in August is apt to obtain a completely false impression of the work which is carried on in our fishing ports. The time to visit the ports is at four o'clock in the morning, on a bitterly cold December day. The visitor should watch the lumpers and filleters working on a bitterly cold December morning. One gets a better impression of what goes on than one does on a fine August day, when everything is rather fun, and the work is quite colourful. One does not then realise what it is like to work in the extreme cold, on slippery floors, in smelly conditions. These ports are 100 years old, and in many ways 100 years out of date.
I take issue with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) on one point. His criticism of the British Transport Commission is unfair, first, because it is not the Commission's job to provide these facilities, and, secondly, because all our ports are being operated at heavy losses. Even if it were the Commission's responsibility, it would not have

the money to carry the job out. If Dr. Beeching goes on fulfilling his present aims all these ports will be closed during the next five years. There is no prospect of their operating at a profit in the next few years.

Captain Hewitson: The Commission owns the land, but up to now it has not been willing to give up land for welfare schemes.

Mr. Crosland: In that case the position in Hull is different from that in Grimsby.
The Minister has mentioned his three-man team and the fact that the port has a considerable number of facilities. They are not all adequate, which is why I support the Clause. Nevertheless, the port has a considerable number, and land is provided by the Commission. The main lack concerns the changing and washing facilities for the filleters.
The Minister ought to take up a more positive attitude. He is correct in saying that these matters should be negotiated between the unions and the employers, but this country has long since accepted the principle that in the case of industries which are in some ways considered as being backward the Government are willing to intervene in collective bargaining. That is why we have wage councils in many industries Although it is late in the day, I hope that the Minister will agree that these ports must be dragged up to mid-twentieth century standards. That is not happening at the moment, and a definite stimulus from the Government is required if it is to happen.

Mr. George Jeger: The Minister has made some sympathetic noises, largely echoing the sympathetic noises made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. The Minister was not present then, but he has been similarly briefed on this occasion. He gives us very little satisfaction. Men who work at the fish docks cannot get themselves changed and dried merely with the aid of words of sympathy. The Minister has said that this Clause does not provide the right way to achieve what he regards as a desirable result. But he does not tell us what is the right way.
That is on parallel lines with the main arguments that we have in the


House or in Committee. We are often told that the reforms that we desire will not be achieved in the way in which we seek to achieve them. The Minister has said that the authority we designate as the authority for these reforms is not the appropriate authority. We are never told which is the right authority, or what is the right way to do these things, or whether the Minister will intervene to get these reforms expedited.
This brings me back to the Fleck Committee's Report. Paragraph 141 states that various things demand
. . vigorous and enlightened leadership; and the fishing ports seem to us to be suffering from a lack of such leadership.
In spite of that, we are told by the Minister that this must be left to the ports to decide, each for itself, by negotiation and discussion between the employers, the workers and the trade unions. How often have we seen the employers playing off one union against another and trying to create divisions amongst the various workers in the industry in order to slow down necessary improvements?
The Minister said that the needs vary from port to port. Do they? Do not all the ports need baths similar to the pithead baths that we have at every coal mine? The workers all need baths after handling fish—gutting, filleting and dealing with it—before they go to their homes, which may be two, three or four miles away from where they work. Slum clearance in the areas of the docks has meant that workers have to live some distance away. They have to travel to and from their homes by public transport. It is disgraceful that similar amenities to pithead baths should not be made compulsory at all fish docks.
Do not all the workers need baths and lavatories, or do the needs vary from port to port? Do not they all need medical facilities and canteens? Of course they do. These are all fundamental needs. They may vary from port to port according to the number of people that has to be catered for, but the actual needs at all ports are exactly the same. Facilities should be standardised and repeated in larger or smaller patterns according to the requirements at the docks.
The Minister quoted the team now

investigating the ports as telling him that the Dock Labour Board provides for the needs of registered dock workers. Does he not know that the fish dock workers and the fishermen are not registered? That is one of our complaints. I moved a new Clause in Committee to do away with decasualisation and to have the fishermen registered. Now we find the Minister quoting, as though he approved of it, that the registered workers are provided for under the Dock Labour Board. That is what we want to see extended. The way in which the Dock Labour Board operates should also apply to the fishermen.

Captain Hewitson: I wish to point out to my hon. Friend that the fishermen at Hull have no desire to be registered with the Dock Labour Board.

Mr. Jeger: That is as may be. I was referring to the fact that the Minister had quoted, in support of his argument, that the Dock Labour Board catered adequately for registered workers. Knowing that, I should like to see the decasualisation and the registration of dock workers at Hull and elsewhere so that they might benefit from the very good organisation specified by the Dock Labour Board.
Over and over again in the Fleck Report, and the deductions which may have been made from it by the Press and public, the need for the hygienic handling of fish has been stressed. Fish should be handled more quickly, and should be brought to the consumer in a cleaner and much better condition than is the case today. Various reports which have been made about the fish docks by medical officers have been horrifying. Surely we desire to improve the conditions there, and how better than by improving the circumstances under which the workers do their work—by improving the washing, changing, lavatory and other facilities? The fish which these people provide is part of the food of the nation, and we want to see it handled in a cleaner and more hygienic way so that it will arrive at the fishmongers' slabs in a better and a cleaner condition.

Mr. John Hall: I regret that I was not able to be in the Chamber in time to hear all the comments of my


right hon. Friend on the proposed new Clause. I wish to support the Clause and the case which has been submitted by hon. Members opposite so far as I have heard it. I do so with some personal knowledge of the conditions in a fishing port, having worked at Grimsby for about two years with fishermen and fish lumpers at the docks.
Everything that has been said about the conditions in a dock like Grimsby is perfectly accurate. The dock is out of date. The fish dock workers have to work under unhygienic conditions of considerable discomfort. Reference has been made to filleters. Anybody who has not been round the fish dock in the early morning when trawlers are being unloaded, and seen the filleters at work, would be horrified at the conditions under which food is prepared and handled. There is a great deal to be said for having an organisation which would bring together trawler owners, fish merchants, port authorities and all those concerned with work at the fish docks so that they might consider providing the right kind of facilities.
I do not wish to say more except to make one reference to the possibility of registering fishermen of which mention has been made. The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) said that fishermen at Hull did not wish to be registered. I can say from experience that the fishermen of Grimsby would not wish to be registered. I have found fishermen to be independent-minded people who, up to now, have seen no necessity for coming under the same kind of scheme as applies in the case of the Dock Labour Board. I do not think that fishermen would respond with enthusiasm to such a suggestion. I believe that they would reply to it in a well-known form of trawlermen's vernacular.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Member aware that at Aberdeen and Milford Haven registration schemes are being successfully carried out?

Mr. Hall: In Grimsby, there is a scheme and registration is operated through the Trawler Owners' Association. This enables crews to be found easily. There is a record of names and addresses of men. It is a method of facilitating their signing on with certain

trawlers. The problem is not finding a job for a fisherman, but finding a fisherman to go to sea. I repeat that I support the proposal. The new Clause may not necessarily contain the right words, or be in the right form, but I think that the idea behind it is worthy of support.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I wish to support the Clause for the reasons given in the speeches of my hon. Friends. I commend to hon. Members the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). It contained a great deal of sense and was in remarkable contrast to the speech of the Minister. I do not wish to be offensive to the right hon. Gentleman. He made a good speech, but it was unconvincing. He opposed the Clause, although he admitted the reasons for it. That is a non-sequitur.
The right hon. Gentleman admits the necessity for the Clause, but says that it is unnecessary because there is existing legislation to deal with the matter. He did not tell us what was the legislation to which he referred. Nor did he mention a single Section of an Act of Parliament. The Minister thought that the Clause did not provide the right way to deal with the problems, but he did not tell us what is the right way. He did not suggest any alternative, beyond referring vaguely to existing machinery.
The Minister said that existing authorities have power to deal with the relevant problems, but he did not indicate the authorities to which he referred. I submit that the Bill would be incomplete without this Clause, or some similiar provision to deal with the relevant problems. The Clause is designed to bring into consultation those persons who have theoretical, practical and financial experience of the industry. They would then be able to pool their experience and endeavour to find solutions for the problems.
The people concerned are those who earn their living from this industry and who have spent many years and have invested their money in it. There are also those who go to sea, take the risks and bring home the fish. The third type of person envisaged in this Clause is the merchant who handles the catch and who sells the fish in the market. Obviously, these three classes of people


are, day by day and month and month, confronted with the very problems to which this Clause relates. The Clause states that port authorities, after consultation with the Minister, may be empowered to establish joint committees. The word used in the Clause is "may" and not "must". It is not coercive or mandatory.
The port authorities,
may, after consultation with the Minister"—
there is a limit to their power—
make arrangements for the establishment of joint committees consisting of representatives of trawler owners, fish merchants and trade unions to consider matters affecting the welfare of workers in the industry including the provision of baths and canteens and other facilities.
These are the people who are conversant with the problems and the needs of the situation. They are in the best position to strive for solutions to the problems involved and to deal with the needs and with the welfare of the workers in the industry.
There is nothing objectionable in the Clause. It is fair and constructive, and the Minister has revealed no reason why the Government should not accept it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again and to realise the value, the importance and the reasonableness of this Clause. He may then change his mind and decide to accept it.

Dame Irene Ward: I am a little uncertain how far my right hon. Friend the Minister intended to go. I am also in a little difficulty because, so far as I can make out, the Opposition have not entirely decided how they want to make what appears to be soma very necessary progress for fishermen and other interests at the various ports. That raises some difficulty in trying to decide what is the proper machinery.
I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the power was already in the hands of the White Fish Authority. I should have liked to have heard a little more about how the Minister envisaged the Authority dealing with this matter, because that seems a proper way to proceed. A number of hon. Members opposite have rightly referred to the establishment of pithead baths at all the main coal pits of the country. I have seen a great deal of that development

over many years. It occurred to me that, as in the past the national body of coal owners established a welfare fund for the purpose, similar machinery might be employed by the White Fish Authority. It was a voluntary arrangement in the mines. A fund was established.
I am not trying to lay down how this should be done, but I am trying to see how machinery could be established. When the welfare fund had been established by the coal owners they considered what each colliery undertaking needed in the establishment of pithead baths. There would be different arrangements at the fishing ports. The miners had their local meetings and decided whether they wanted baths at the various collieries. If my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting till news be brought to me.

Sitting suspended at twenty minutes to Seven o'clock.

Sitting resumed at ten minutes to Seven o'clock.

Dame Irene Ward: I am sure that the whole House will hope that our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who has just collapsed, will soon be back with us again, and, in his characteristic fashion, be able to make further contributions to the debate on behalf of the fishing interests which he has so much at heart. We shall be glad to hear that he has recovered from his collapse and that he will be back with us again soon.
I was saying that I was a little puzzled about how far my right hon. Friend the Minister wanted to go in this matter. If it is the Government's intention to oppose the new Clause, I hope that my fright hon. Friend intends himself to take an active part. The way in which the establishment of pithead baths at the various colliery undertakings has been dealt with represents a useful way of making progress in an industry in which there are a variety of interests and a variety of ports.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give a little more indication of what he has in mind. He told us that he was satisfied that the White Fish


Authority had the power to take action. What I should like to know is whether, through his Department, my right hon. Friend will stimulate the White Fish Authority to examine the whole question to find out the best way of dealing with it. Before we part with the Clause, perhaps my right hon. Friend will make some further observations in that regard.
The various comments from the benches opposite were made in a variety of directions. One hon. Member said that the Transport Commission had given the land at one of the ports. Am I to understand that that land was given by the Transport Commission without rent as a free gift to the port for the use which had been made of it, which appears to have been of great benefit to the fishing industry there, or was there negotiation between the Commission and the port or fishing authorities? If it is, so to speak, a free gift from the Commission, one would like to know whether, where Transport Commission land is involved, we shall be able to look forward to the same kind of treatment by the Commission in other ports where a similar circumstance might arise.
My right hon. Friend's reply was sympathetic, but, as hon. Members opposite have pointed out, we have got to the stage where we want sympathy converted into action. If we allow these ideas to fade away without action being taken, perhaps the White Fish Authority will either not wish to make further progress, even though it has the power, or it may not be able to bring all the interests together. Most of us who follow these ideas of promoting a modern, up-to-date welfare always know that some people in an industry want to make progress and others do not.
I cannot see why my right hon. Friend cannot say definitely that he will recommend the White Fish Authority to use all its powers. He should call together all the various interests and should have a discussion with a view to ascertaining the best method of establishing the proper machinery. Although the port authorities, according to what my right hon. Friend said, may not be the right type of authority through which to make this progress—it was obvious from what he said that he favoured the White Fish

Authority as being the most responsible authority in the matter—he did not say that he would ensure that the Authority made use of its legislative powers. Although my right hon. Friend might not want to tie the hands of the Authority, it must be obvious that as the Government are subsidising the Authority, and have a large part in its general financial background, anything that he said to the Authority would necessarily carry great weight.
Can my right hon. Friend make it just a little more clear that as soon as the Bill becomes law, the White Fish Authority will set about getting all the interests together to establish a proper machine, which all of us who are interested in the fishing industry and who know anything about the workings of the ports would welcome? I hope that before we leave the Clause we shall hear exactly what my right hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has pointed to the great weakness of the Minister's reply. He gave no indication whatever that he intended to do anything about trying to achieve the things that hon. Members on both sides so obviously regard as desirable. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have already been adduced about the desirability of providing the facilities indicated in the new Clause. That is self-evident at this time of day. I should have thought it fairly evident that, by and large, those conditions do mat exist. Whilst there are exceptions and certain provisions have been made in various ports of different kinds for various purposes, the conditions envisaged in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) do not generally exist.
As the hon. Lady has pointed out, we have to bear in mind that we are financing this industry at a substantial cost. We are contributing to it millions of pounds a year. Therefore, Members of this House have a right and a responsibility to try to ensure that these conditions are provided.
That brings me to the question of how it should, be done. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Minister


said that the White Fish Authority already has power to do these things. We would like somebody to be given the responsibility for doing them. These two things are rather different. Plenty of bodies have all sorts of powers, but some of them never use their powers. We want somebody to be given responsibility for trying to bring this about.
7.0 p.m.
If the White Fish Authority were considered to be the most suitable body, it is obvious that it would take into account the conditions at the ports and pay regard to the various interests concerned. In carrying out its responsibility it would seek to co-operate with the bodies concerned. This is what we would like to see written into the Bill. We are now financing and guaranteeing the industry for the next ten years. As we are doing that, it is not too much to ask that the necessary steps be taken to ensure that responsibility is placed somewhere—either upon the White Fish Authority, if it is considered to be the best organisation, or upon the port authorities—to have the necessary consultations and take the necessary steps to bring about the state of affairs which my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite desire.
We have not heard from the Minister that he intends to do this. He merely told us that his three-man team is now examining conditions at the ports. He said that the team has reported on Grimsby and would soon report on the other ports as it visits them. That is all very well, but it merely gives us a picture of what there is. It does not follow that When a report is made the report will be followed by the necessary action. Therefore, the Minister's speech did not mean much. We have been told that we do not need to bother because the White Fish Authority already has the power. The responsibility should be placed somewhere. I cannot see why the Government do not agree to insert the new Clause in the Bill, the object of Which is to guarantee the industry for the next ten years. Some body should be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that these services are provided.
This is a modest request. I thought that my hon. and gallant Friend was rather too modest in his demands when

he moved the Clause. In these days these facilities are almost a right. They are what we expect. We expect them even more from an industry which is receiving such large sums of public money. I ask the Minister to give us much better undertakings than he has so far. I should like to see a provision in the Bill placing the responsibility definitely upon some organisation. If it is necessary to vote against the Government to persuade them that this should be done, 1, for one, will be quite willing to vote against them.

Sir David Robertson: There is considerable merit in the Clause and I am surprised that this is the first time that we have heard anything about this subject in the House. I was in the fishing industry for twenty years up to 1935. I am still in the business at Grimsby as chairman and managing director of the principal cold storage company. The excellent industrial relations prevailing at Hull have been mentioned. Similar good relations prevail at Grimsby. I believe that we are pushing at an open door. The principal filleters in Grimsby—the Unilever subsidiary, Birds Eye; the Associated Fisheries subsidiary, Eskimo, and the Ross Group, which do a vast amount of filleting at Grimsby—have first-class premises, with adequate washing and changing facilities, and so on.
The same sort of thing is true in London at the oldest fish market of all—Billingsgate. Great improvements have been carried out at Billingsgate. A new quay has been built. Hot water baths for porters, changing rooms, lockers, and so on, have been provided. These things did not exist at the market before, but they are right and proper in this day and age. Men who are working among fish smell of it. Their clothes get damp and soiled. They should be provided with changing facilities.
I am confident that they will get them, but I am not certain that a provision in an Act of Parliament is the quickest way of bringing about this desirable state of affairs. If hon. Members representing Hull and Grimsby talked to their local authorities, which are the health authorities, they would find a very willing response. As one of the larger employers in Grimsby, I will raise this subject and do everything I can.


I know the merchants' associations and the trawler associations, as does the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). At Hull and Grimsby the latest and greatest trawlers have been built—the "Lord Nelson" and the "Junella" of Fleetwood—with first-class crew accommodation.
This objective could be achieved in a matter of weeks, because we can turn to the White Fish Authority. We have a right to ask the Authority to take the lead in this matter. The Authority was formed to take some of the burdens away from the Government. Goodness knows, they have plenty of them. This is one problem which could be solved through the trade unions, the local authorities, the merchants' associations and the filleting people. I am certain that there would be a very ready response.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I was surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). If he had made a speech of that kind twenty years ago, we could have appreciated it. Good employers should not be asked today to provide welfare facilities for their workers. The facilities should already exist. If the Minister does not accept the Clause he will really be telling the industry, especially the employees, that he is not interested in their welfare.
Today, we are arguing about whether baths should be supplied for people working in the fishing industry. We are arguing about whether changing rooms should be provided. We have even heard about the lack of ambulance facilities. All this does not say much for the employers. I am certain that the trade unions have wanted these facilities for a long time. I am shocked that the Minister, in this day and age, will not accept the Clause, even in principle.
We have heard about welfare facilities in the mining industry. Some good employers built baths before nationalisation, but many did not. One of the first actions of the National Coal Board was to ensure that baths were erected at every colliery. The Board, in comparison with the White Fish Authority and the merchants in the fishing industry, has proved to be a good employer. I cannot

understand why the Government do no) definitely tell the Authority that welfare facilities must be provided as quickly as possible.
Ports without lavatories have been mentioned. I saw a little article in the paper the other day on this subject. The article asked what they were called. Were they W.Cs? Were they lavatories? Were they toilets? Were they retiring rooms? Were they "the small rooms"? Their original name was W.Cs. Today, "toilet" seems to be the most preferred description. The Government should look forward, not backwards, and accept the principle behind the new Clause, which was moved so well and ably by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson).
We should realise that the people who do a wonderful job for the country are just as much entitled, at the end of their working shift, to have good welfare facilities as are any other workers. What embarrassment must women working as filleters feel when going through the streets and travelling in public transport when wearing their working clothes. How they must feel that they are not welcome to sit beside someone who has not been doing that work.
The Minister should instruct the White Fish Authority to take immediate action to overcome these difficulties. I very well remember that at one time the miner was criticised by the public for travelling in public service vehicles in his dirty clothes. That is changed; today, a miner need not go home in his pit clothes. There is probably no aroma quite as bad as that resulting from handling fish, and I hope that the Minister will realise that.
Another important point about changing facilities is that many of the women workers are married. They have to shop for their families. From their place of work, they must travel by bus to their homes on the outskirts of the port. They pass the very shops at which they want to buy the goods necessary for their families, but, because of their working clothes, they have to go home, change, and return to the shops. I hope that we will do something about that.
There is also the hygienic aspect. There should be facilities for the laundering of working clothes. These people are handling food, and any doctor would say that from the hygienic point of view such facilities are essential.
I hope that the Minister will take these things into consideration. The new Clause is reasonable and moderate; its powers are permissive. A committee should at once be set up and welfare facilities provided immediately for the people who work in this very important industry. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept at least the principle of the Clause.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: We have had a very good discussion on this new Clause, and I should at once like to associate myself with the kind wishes expressed by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). We all hope that he will soon be with us again.
Replying to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson), the Minister showed a great deal of sympathy. I know that he, like us, wants to do something about this matter. The one thing about which we must not get mixed up in discussing this Clause is who is to provide the land, and whether or not it will be given by the British Transport Commission. This has nothing to do with the Commission. The industry itself must deal with it, and the Clause asks that the same provision shall be made for the men in the fishing industry as has been made for men in so many other industries. In other words, it asks for the provision of facilities so that these people may enjoy the ordinary amenities of life. That is all that is asked.
The Minister said that this three-man team which is now inspecting the ports will report back to him, and that it had reported on Grimsby. What every hon. Member wants to know is what is to happen to the reports. We have no doubt at all that this team will make reports, and that it will make very good reports, but what will happen after those reports are made? The Minister has said that the White Fish Authority

already has the power to do this. If that is so out doubts are fortified, because the Authority has not so far used its power. Therefore, before we part with this new Clause, we want to be assured as to whose will be the responsibility for doing this job.
That is the point as shortly and as simply as I can put it, and it is on that that we want a reply from the Minister. I am sure that every hon. Member feels that this job has to be done, that these people are entitled to these amenities, and that we expect the Minister to tell us on whom he intends to fasten the responsibility. Only when he does that can we be assured that the work will be carried out.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) appreciates better than anyone in the House what it is that is required. He has worded his new Clause extremely carefully. He appreciates where the responsibility for providing these facilities lies; it is for the employers, the industry, to provide them. That is why he has used the words:
Port authorities may … make arrangements for the establishments of joint committees … to consider matters affecting the welfare …
It was not for nothing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman so worded his Clause, because he realises full well that the responsibility rests with this industry, as it does with every other industry.
The difficulty springs here very largely from the fact that there are a number of different employers, doing different jobs, whose men require different facilities. Some of the facilities are quite common, of course. The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) tried to mock this, but the types of facilities and their extension vary in different ports, as I think is generally appreciated. There are different employers whose men require different facilities, but it would be foolish, say, to put up a canteen that would be used only by the filleters in a port. That sort of thing requires some "get together" between the different branches of the industry within the port, and what the new Clause seeks is some form of voluntary co-ordination.
It would be a great mistake if, as a result of this debate, the country got the idea that there are not welfare facili-


ties in the ports at present. We have heard many heart-rending remarks about men not being able to change, or take baths, and Chat it is all very terrible. There are gaps, of course, and in Hull there are very special gaps, in the welfare facilities, but our case is that it is not for the port authorities, as the Clause seeks, to make arrangements for the establishment of joint committees.
When this matter was considered in Committee we said that we would like to see whether it was necessary to legislate to enable the White Fish Authority to undertake this work. When I spoke earlier I did not refer to the relevant Act, but it is the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951. In Section 4 (1, j) the White Fish authority has the duty to
… encourage, by means of publicity and by advice and instruction, the improvement of conditions in the white fish industry …
We are thus quite satisfied that the White Fish Authority has the authority of Parliament to take co-ordinating action.
It is not only for the White Fish Authority. In different ports, in varying circumstances, port authorities might well come in—perhaps letting a bit of land, as has been done at Grimsby.
The team which is going round the major ports is not waiting for the Bill to go through. That is not necessary. It does not stem from the Bill. The team consists of the Chairman of the White Fish Authority, the Chairman of the British Transport Commission Docks Division and the Fisheries Secretary from my Department. The intention is that the team should not only find out what the facts are, but, in each port, see the problems, see what is lacking, and what is the best way in which problems ought to be tackled. It will be mostly a question of bringing together the different employers in the ports.
The White Fish Authority has legal power to initiate action in this respect. It is very well aware of this. At my request the team is looking into this specific part of life in the fishing ports. When we have got the reports and have seen what is lacking and what needs to be done and how best it should be done then the White Fish Authority will, I know, do whatever should be necessary, and get together those interests which are responsible for providing these things

within this industry—in just the same way as these things are done in every other industry.
It is a great mistake to suggest that nothing has been done. Of course, there will not always be perfection, but I must say that, apart from Hull, we have not had complaints to any marked degree from the major ports on this. I think that it would be a mistake to say nothing has been done, but this is a particular aspect to which the team will be paying attention, and I can assure the House that reports which it makes and the suggestions which it makes will be considered within my Department. They will come to me from the Fisheries Secretary. Certainly, that is the spirit which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to provide for in the Bill.
However, we believe it is not right to legislate for this, and that it is certainly not for the port authorities to do it, but we fully agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman what has to be done, and it certainly will be done. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to withdraw the Clause.

Captain Hewitson: In view of what the Minister has said, and especially that Sir Robert Letch was to see what could be done, and of the possibility that some authority will be looking after the welfare of the fish dock workers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(REORGANISATION OF WHITE FISH SUBSIDY FOR LARGER VESSELS.)

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out subsection (8).
Clause 2 deals with the reorganisation of the White Fish subsidy for larger vessels, and in this Amendment we are again considering a matter which we raised in Standing Committee where an undertaking was given by the Government to consider whether a scheme providing for special subsidy payments should be made subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. I know that this is an old argument always raised in Standing Committee; we often feel that that procedure should be the one to be adopted so that the House may be more fully informed.
No doubt the Minister has considered this. I assume that he has considered it very carefully. It may well be that it may be essential to bring in a scheme for a special subsidy rate very quickly and that the amount of money may not be large, but, nevertheless, we move the Amendment, again arguing for the affirmative Resolution procedure, because we should like to know what is in the Minister's mind and why the assurance which was given has not been fully undertaken. I am not saying that there has been a breach of faith, but as the Minister did say that he would consider it, we should like to know why he has not put down an Amendment.

Mr. Soames: We did say that we would reconsider this. It is a matter of balance. I think the hon. Gentleman is with me on it. On the one hand, we have the need for Parliamentary control over the money, and that leads one towards having the affirmative Resolution. Against that we have the point which he made, that this special fund is to be available to meet cases of urgency which might, for instance, arise in August. We should have to wait till the House met, perhaps late in November, before we could put the scheme into operation, and that might be to the disadvantage of the industry as a whole.
As to the money side, the special fund is for £2½ million over ten years, so it cannot average more than £250,000 or so over each year, with a maximum in any one year of £350,000. That compares with the present general subsidy level of £3½ million, so it is a comparatively small figure.
The main order will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure and will be discussed by the House. Very often, of course, this extra money for special rates will be included in the same order, following discussions we have with the industry prior to drawing up the order as to what is to be done each year. It may or may not be necessary to hold some money back but I think it unlikely that the major part of the sum would not be committed with the general subsidy itself. Therefore, it will be for the House to discuss it. It would be only in the event of some emergency that, say, £100,000 or £150,000 would be required to help some section of the industry in

need, and that sum would be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
Looking at it in perspective, I should have thought this to be about the right balance, and on balance we thought it best to leave it as it stands.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Peart: The Minister has argued that we should take a balanced view. There are arguments for and against but we were anxious to have safeguards because, despite what the Minister has said, there is still a great deal of money involved. One cannot dismiss £2½ million over a period of ten years lightly, and even if we were arguing over £250,000 with a maximum of £350,000 it would still be a large sum. Hon. Members who have responsibility want to know the details of the scheme, but I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the larger amount of money to be paid out to the industry being subject to affirmative Resolution.
In this case there is need to bring in a special rate quickly and the sum of money is small relative to the other large sum. We wanted to extract from the Minister an assurance that there would be safeguards. I assume that there will be consultation and that, even with the negative procedure, Parliament will have some measure of control. Accepting those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3.—(EXTENSION OF POWERS OF WHITE FISH AUTHORITY AND HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD TO MAKE GRANTS.)

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out "new".
It might be convenient also for the House to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in page 4, line 38; in page 28, line 21; in page 35, line 44; in page 36, line 2; in page 37, line 18; in page 37, line 24; in page 38, line 32; and in page 42, line 54. They are all connected and flow directly from the first Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendments is to make clear that grants for the acquisition of white fish or herring vessels and for engines or equipment can be given only for new material and are not available for anything that is second-


hand. This has been the position under both the 1953 and 1957 Acts which make the grants available, and it was not the intention in the Bill to make any change. The original words of the Clause do not make this plain, as was revealed by discussions in Committee. It was pointed out in Committee that the words could be read to include secondhand vessels. The Amendments are intended to clear up any doubt.
The Amendments to the Second Schedule are purely consequential. They provide for corresponding verbal amendments in the 1953 and 1957 Acts from which the powers to pay grants are derived. The Amendment to Clause 33 brings that Clause into line with the 1953 and 1957 Acts in their new form.

Mr. Peart: The Minister has appreciated that when this matter was raised in Committee it was thought that the present wording made it possible for the payment of grants for second-hand equipment, and it was not clear that only new equipment could be grant-aided. We merely sought to clarify the existing legislation and we accept what the Minister has said.

Amendment agreed to.

Further A mendments made: In page 4, line 33, leave out from "applies" to "or" in line 34.

In line 38, at end insert:
Provided that no grant shall be so made in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of any secondhand vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus.—[Mr. Soames.]

Clause 10.—(POWER TO RESTRICT FISHING FOR SEA-FISH.)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I beg to move, in page 9, line 37, to leave out "those limits" and insert:
the limits of those territorial waters".
It might be convenient to discuss also the Amendment in page 10, line 36, leave out "those limits" and insert:
the limits of those territorial waters".
These Amendments are intended to remove the possibility—and I do not think that it is any more—of some doubt arising about the precise meaning of Clause 10 (1, b) and the corresponding paragraph of Clause 11, in which case subsection (1, a) refers to

… fishing for salmon or migratory trout, whether within or outside the limits of the territorial waters adjacent to Great Britain …
Paragraph (b) goes on to refer to
… fishing for any other sea-fish within those limits".
What is intended is that paragraph (b) in both cases should cover fishing for sea fish other than salmon and trout inside the limit of territorial waters.
It was suggested in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) that because of the effect of paragraph (a) there might be doubt as to what the limit was intended in paragraph (b). I am not sure that there is doubt about this, but it is better to make the position clear. The Amendment does this by revising the words to make it quite impossible for anyone to misunderstand their meaning.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, after "(1)". to insert:
except an order which—

(a) has effect in relation to salmon or migratory trout (whether it has effect in relation to any other description of fish or not), and
(b) is not made for the sole purpose of giving effect to such a convention or agreement as is mentioned in that subsection"

Perhaps it would be convenient if we were also to discuss the Amendment, in line 5, leave out from "time" to "may" in line 6 and insert:
(3) Any prohibition imposed by an order under the said subsection (1).
The purpose is to place some limitations on the power contained in Clause 10 to make for indefinite periods Orders prohibiting fishing. When this provision was discussed in Committee it was explained that power to make Orders for an indefinite period had been included so as to enable us to make Orders which would remain in force for any period of an international agreement. Those agreements are clearly made for an indefinite period and it would obviously be awkward if we had no powers to make Orders which would fit in with international agreements to which we were a party.
Some hon. Members were concerned in case the power to make Orders for an indefinite period should be used for other cases and particularly Orders relating to salmon and trout. As was


explained, we have no intention of making an Order dealing with salmon and trout for anything other than a specified period. In view of the concern on this matter which was expressed in Committee, we have tabled the Amendment to make it clear that we cannot do so. The Amendment provides that the power to make an Order for an unspecified period does not apply to an order dealing with salmon and migratory trout unless that Order is made in pursuance of an international agreement.
Hon. Members will note from the terms of the Amendment that even if an Order applies to other fish as well as salmon and trout it will not be possible to make it for an indefinite period. Therefore, any Order containing any provision about salmon and trout will have to be for a specified period.
Therefore, I hope that the House will regard the Amendment as a useful one and will accept it.

Mr. Peart: This is a complicated matter which was raised in Committee, and I am glad that the Minister has considered whether Orders made for indefinite periods should be restricted to matters connected with international fishery agreements. As the Minister has said, an Amendment has been tabled to provide that orders under this Clause relating to salmon or migratory trout should not be made for indefinite periods unless they are in pursuance of international agreements. We are glad that the Minister has looked into this. As I said, it is a complicated matter. I accept the assurance which has been given.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 5, leave out from "time" to "may" in line 6 and insert:
(3) Any prohibition imposed by an order under the said subsection (1).—[Mr. Leburn.]

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, in page 10. line 23, to leave out subsection (5).
We put down this Amendment so that we may explore this matter. We have done this purely to get information from the Minister, and I hope that it will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss

at the same time the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), to Clause 11, in page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (7) and in line 43, leave out subsection (8). I do not want to go too fast but those Amendments may be discussed together if the House wishes.

Mr. Peart: I am perfectly willing for that to be done, Mr. Speaker, if it is convenient to the House. We have tabled these Amendments to obtain information from the Government on a matter which we raised on a previous occasion.

Mr. Leburn: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) that I cannot accept his three Amendments, but I will try to explain to him, because the Amendment has been tabled for exploratory purposes, why the provisions of Clause 10 (5) and Clause 11 (8), which two of his Amendments seek to delete, give sea fishery officers powers to seize fish which have been caught in contravention of a prohibition or licensing order.
The hon. Member's other Amendment seeks to delete Clause 11 (7), which deals with a slightly different point. It provides that a court should have power to order forfeiture of any fish in respect of which an offence against a licensing order has been committed.
We had a fairly full discussion in the Standing Committee on identical Amendments. I assure the hon. Member Chat we have carefully considered the points which were then made. I think it will be easier if I deal first with the Amendment which would remove the court's power to order forfeiture of fish for an offence under a licensing order. We are satisfied that if we accepted that Amendment we should be creating an anomaly in the treatment of the offences with which this Bill deals. All the provision does is to bring the penalty for offences against a licensing order into line with the penalty for offences against a prohibition order. These are already provided for in the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959, and include a power to order forfeiture of fish. I think that the House will agree that there is every reason for having the same penalties for the two offences.
The other Amendments, on which we spent some time in Committee, would take away the powers of sea fishery officers to seize fish in respect of which an offence against a prohibition order or a licensing order had been committed. I explained to the Committee that these powers are required because the fish themselves axe very often the best evidence of an offence having been committed. For example, fish caught by drift net bear distinctive marks which enable them to be identified. If the enforcing officers had no powers to seize fish, this evidence would then not be available.
7.45 p.m.
I know that in Standing Committee some hon. Members were concerned that innocent persons might suffer loss if the fish which had been seized were allowed to deteriorate and eventually returned in a less valuable condition. I promised the Committee that we would go into this again very carefully to see whether there was any way in which this difficulty could possibly be overcome. I should remind hon. Members in the first place that if any innocent person suffers loss as a result of the action of a sea fishery officer in seizing fish, he may seek redress by civil action. At the same time, I appreciate perfectly well that this is not altogether satisfactory and that most normal people would hesitate to take this action.
In order to try to ensure that loss will not be suffered by innocent persons, we propose—I am giving the House a firm assurance on this—to advise all enforcing officers to take steps to ensure that any fish seized are stored in the best possible conditions. I think hon. Members will agree that with the facilities which we have at our disposal in these modem times it should be possible to ensure that deterioration does not occur or, at least, that any deterioration is kept to the minimum. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will be satisfied and will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Peart: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has carefully looked into this matter. We are concerned that an innocent person might suffer, and the Minister undertook to look at the matter again to see Whether the Clause could be amended as we wished to reduce the

possibility of any injustice being done to a person whose fish might be seized by an enforcing officer. Such a person might later, of course, be acquitted of any offence. We were anxious that adequate safeguards about the fish should be provided, and I am very glad to have the Minister's assurance that enforcing officers will be advised to make use of proper facilities to ensure that the fish are stored in such a manner that there will be no deterioration and that an innocent person will not suffer financially.
Having been given that assurance, I beg to ask leave to Withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, at the end to insert:
(6) Where any order under subsection (1) of the said section seven is not made for the sole purpose of giving effect to such a convention or agreement as is mentioned in that subsection, the order shall contain a statement to that effect.
The Amendment is designed to deal with a point raised by hon. Members in Standing Committee, namely, that where a prohibition Order was not made in pursuance of an international agreement, the Order itself should contain a statement to that effect. Indeed, hon. Members opposite themselves put down an Amendment designed to secure this, but we were unable to accept it in its precise form. In addition, I explained that it seemed to me that the proposal marked a departure from more recent practice, and that we therefore had to consider carefully Whether a proviso of this kind would be appropriate. I promised the Committee that we would look at the Amendment again, and hon. Members will be glad to know that, following further examination, we have come to the conclusion that although this procedure is rather unusual there is no real legal objection to it.
This Amendment, therefore, provides that any Order, under Section 7 (1) of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959, prohibiting fishing shall, if it is not made in pursuance of an international agreement, contain a statement to that effect.

Mr. Peart: I raised this matter in Standing Committee and I am glad that the Minister has responded and that now


there is no difficulty about bringing in an Amendment for this purpose. It means that the necessary explanation can be given to any Order made under the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959. We argued in Standing Committee that an Order restricting fishing should include a statement, either in the Order itself or in the Explanatory Statement attached to it, indicating whether or not it had been made to give effect to an international agreement.
Obviously, in fishing legislation, the impact of an international convention or agreement could be considerable. It is as well that we should know whether the Government are acting because of an international convention or agreement or because they have some specific domestic reason. I am glad that the Minister has considered this point and that our view has been accepted. We are, naturally, pleased that there has been a concession.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir D. Robertson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, at the end to insert:
(6) As soon as this Act is passed the Ministers shall make orders to prohibit the fishing for salmon in the sea by drift-netting in Scottish waters from either the fifteenth day of May next or the date of the passing of this Act, whichever is the earlier.
I learned with dismay that in Standing Committee the Government announced that the Bill would not operate until 15th September of this year. That is the last day for the legal netting of salmon in Scotland. It must then end. Most of the netting finishes earlier—in August—but on the Tweed it goes on until 15th September. If the Government's decision is maintained, it means that the drift netters—whose methods of fishing for salmon will become illegal—will still have the whole of the catching year of 1962 left to them. The best months for salmon fishing are June, July and August. Heavy fishing is usual in the last week of August and the first week of September, and July can be a bonanza.
I telephoned on Friday to Mr. William Malloch, Managing Director of the Tay Salmon Fisheries Company, for information about the catch. I received a telegram from him yesterday, which read as follows:
Official estimate 35,000 to 38,000 salmon landed by drift net fishermen this spring.
I believe that in July alone twice that

number of fish could be caught and that by the end of this year irreparable damage will have been done to all the salmon fisheries in Scotland.
The whole history of the fishing industry in my lifetime has been one of overfishing. As I said on Second Reading, the god-fearing net fishermen—as most of them are—have taken to netting salmon because they have over-fished their own areas and are finding it difficult to get a living from the grounds to which they have gone year after year, without giving the species the chance to reproduce itself.
That situation brought drift netting about, and it will also bring about not only the end of drift netting but the total destruction of the salmon fisheries. The salmon may never come back to these rivers, and the chances are that there will be a repetition of what happened to some extent on the west coast of Ireland. Drift netting has always been possible on the west coast of Ireland. On Saturday, I telephoned Mr. Arthur Noble, a member of the board of Associated Fisheries, and asked him what had happened to the great mass of drift nets which his company used to operate off the west coast of Ireland, where there were miles of drift nets. He told me that it had become unprofitable.
I could have told him that. That is the effect of all over-fishing. But overfishing stops only when it becomes unprofitable. A rich harvest is reaped for a year or two by massacring salmon, giving them no chance to go back to the place of their birth. Yet now the Government propose to give the drift netters another six months in which to complete their fell work.
My object is to induce the Government—with, I hope, the full co-operation of the Opposition and of another place—when we get rid of this Bill tonight to expedite its passage through another place with all speed. I feel hopeful that Members of another place will agree to that, and if the usual channels agreed it would prevent the distress which I fear so much.
Drift netting for salmon will become illegal on the 16th September, and every year thereafter, according to the Government's present proposals. Why not make it illegal at the earliest possible


moment? The reasons for making it illegal in September are the same as for making it illegal today. I was in the war-time Coalition Parliament when we passed through Bills in hours, not days—when that had to be done and when Parliament surrendered its powers to the Executive. I appeal to the Government and to the Opposition to support this Amendment.
All the history of over-fishing has happened since 1893. Although the North Sea and the adjacent seas had been there for millions of years, the fish had lived and died normally. In a short period of time, we got to the point when it did not pay any more to build large trawlers for the North Sea but, instead, for waters off Iceland, the North Cape and Norway. Now we have been driven out of those grounds by overfishing. Today's Scotsman carries a sad report of the plight of the Aberdeen trawler industry because the Danes are pushing it out of the grounds off the Faroe Islands, where at least one-third of its catch has come from.
That is the history which has taken place in my lifetime. It is one of destruction. It has been one of the elimination of wild life. I beg hon. Members to bring it to an end. The salmon is not a sea creature. It is a river fish. It goes back to the river of its birth to spawn. Its young must go to the sea between eighteen months and two years. Their greatest growth occurs in the sea, but to reproduce the salmon must come back to the river of its birth. It has this tremendous instinct, similar to that of the homing pigeon, to go back not only to the river of its birth, but, if possible, to the actual place or birth.
The salmon is beset by other creatures as well as by man. I have seen seals in the River Tay, a few miles east of Perth Bridge, waiting for drift netters to drag in their nets. Any fish that escapes is grabbed by the seals in the fresh water. There are also the otters and the masqueraders who pass as anglers, but who use foul methods of netting fish and catching salmon which congregate in the pools and cannot get up over the waterfalls because there is not a big enough flow of water.
8.0 p.m.
The salmon is the king of all fish, and I feel that it is the paramount duty of this House and of those of us who have been sent here to represent the people to bring to an end this vandalism, because that is what it is. What can escape a nylon net 1,000 yards long, operated on a flood tide and drifting into the river mouth? Surely we should not stand by and allow this to happen. We are told that it will be all right on 16th September, when there can be no netting anyway, because a close season is imposed and it will not be open until the following year.
Why not bring it in now? I have suggested 15th May, but maybe there is not enough time to fix that date. I am myself quite certain that if this House supports this Amendment there will not be much difficulty in getting it through another place quickly. I earnestly hope that the House, and particularly the Opposition, who, I know, have taken a different view on this, which many hon. Members have expressed honestly and fairly, will agree that if it is right on 16th September, then let us make it right on 20th May, or the soonest possible date on which we can do it.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I certainly support the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) that drift-net fishing for salmon should be stopped at the earliest possible moment.
As the House knows, this is a new departure from the traditional method of fishing for salmon in Scotland. It started in 1960, with about twelve boats fishing off the estuary of the Tweed. Now, there are 150 boats, many of them, I regret to say, operating from ports in my own constituency, going out nightly fishing by drift net for salmon. As my hon. Friend has said, they started by using nets 1,000 yards long, and all this has been made possible by the new man-made fibre, the light nylon fibre, which enables these enormously long nets to be supported and to cover great distances of the sea. Now, I am told, they have evolved a method of operating in teams of eleven boats with perhaps not more than 150 yards of net between, but


covering a mile of sea. What chance is there, with this mile-long wall of netting across the run of the salmon, which can be ascertained before, of any fish escaping into the river?
It would not be so bad if these men fished only in the close season and observed the weekly close times, but this year they started two to three weeks before the legal commencement of the stake-netting season. They have not, I am sorry to say, always observed the weekly close times. In my own county town of Stonehaven, on the morning of Monday, 12th March, over 1,000 salmon were landed and sold before 9 o'clock—all caught within the week-end close time. Let me say in passing that during that one week 3,650 salmon were landed in the first four days, having been caught by drift nets during that period.
The Government's announcement during the Committee stage that the time-table would not permit them, as I understood it, to introduce the necessary orders to take effect before 15th September this year triggered off the most extraordinary activity in this drift netting. Everyone who could put to sea in whatever kind of boat put to sea and went after this golden harvest. By mid-April, the figures which I have been receiving weekly indicated that at least 33,000 salmon had been caught, but I am quite prepared to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland is much nearer the mark when he quotes the general manager of the Tay Fisheries Board as saying, as I understood him to say, that it is more like 38,000 salmon up to date.
At any rate, these figures—whether they are the 33,000 to the middle of April or the 38,000 up to the present time, have to be compared with 28,000 for last year—that is, for the whole of 1961. On my conservative figures, to the middle of April, this must represent a payment direct to the inshore fishermen for salmon of £150,000. One merchant paid fishermen in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) £23,000 in one week, and taking a low price of 7s. per lb., that represents payment for 6,500 salmon caught by drift netting. The price in Billingsgate would be very much higher still.
All this cannot fail to have the most

disastrous effect on the number of fish going up the rivers to spawn. In fact, in the North Esk in my constituency, to the end of March, taking the figures of salmon caught by traditional river netting last year and in the present year, as compared with exactly similar periods in 1959, I find that the catch in the North Esk fell by 34 per cent. in 1961 and by 73 per cent. this year, and that kind of pattern is being repeated all over Scotland.
I represent large numbers of inshore fishermen—men from ports like Gourdon, Johnshaven, Ferryden, Montrose and Stonehaven—who are getting legitimately at the present moment large sums of money as a result of these activities. I hate opposing their activities, as I have done all through, in Standing Committee as I am doing now; I get no joy from it at all. These men are gallant men, many of them having served as naval reservists, and I rejoice to see young men coming straight out of the Navy, buying shares in boats operating in my constituency and taking up this traditional way of life and doing it with enthusiasm. I am desperately sorry to have to oppose them, but I am quite sure that it is wrong that they should carry on this activity. It is wrong partly in their own interests, because they are jeopardising their own livelihood in stopping the flow of prime, freshly caught white fish, because they are not landing the quality of white fish which justifies the merchants going down to the pierhead to buy their catches when they come in.
I also represent another type of fisherman—the sea fishermen who are employed in the traditional coastal netting by bag and stake net, which represent the traditional Scottish way of the commercial catching of salmon. These men along with others, representing the traditional net fishermen in Scotland from the Borders to the Pentland Firth, met in Aberdeen on 28th March this year. They passed this resolution which has a great bearing on the Amendment and which says:
That the men engaged in traditional salmon fishing around the coasts and estuaries of Scotland, whose only means of livelihood and earnings are endangered by the recent introduction and subsequent growth of drift net fishing for salmon, urge that speedy and effective measures be taken by the Government to ban drift net fishing for salmon and the


landing of drift net caught salmon which are causing the wholesale destruction of salmon stocks and which, if allowed to continue, will lead to the economic collapse of the traditional salmon fishing industry which gives direct employment to approximately 1,700 men in Scotland and indirect employment to many others.
There can be no question about the very serious threat to stocks, and that is the point I am making. It will take five years to repair the damage done to stocks in two years of drift-net fishing. The sooner we can stop it the better.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I should like to speak as strongly as I can in support of the Amendment, not from prejudice, because I am not a fisher, but because of my own experience in and near my constituency during the Easter Recess and for some months before.
I have the honour to represent a constituency containing three of the major salmon fishing rivers in Scotland. The effect on parts of my constituency of the drift netting which has been going on for the last two years is little short of disastrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has given figures of the fish which have been caught by the drift netting method, but I should like to give the corresponding figures not of the fish which have been caught, but of the few fish which have got up the rivers for the legitimate and traditional methods of fishing and for breeding and maintaining the salmon stocks.
The Aberdeen Harbour Board gave me facilities to see its fishermen in operation using the traditional method of the sweep nets at the river mouth. For four hours during one day, on the morning tide from eleven o'clock in the morning until three o'clock in the afternoon, seven men with valuable equipment and boats caught only one fish. Before drift netting got under way, the catch would have been not one but up to 40 fish in one sweep. There used to be fourteen men in that fishing station and those Who remain are in mortal terror for their livelihood.
That sort of thing has happened all round the Scottish coast. In my own constituency we have it in the mouth of the Dee and the Don and the Deveron. I have gone carefully into the figures for catches by traditional methods in the

Dee, in my constituency. Over the past ten years the average catch by traditional methods in the first three months of the year, in the spring run, has been 2,703 fish. This year, as a result of the drift netting, the number of fish caught by traditional netting methods during the spring run has been only 582, or 21·5 per cent. of the number caught in previous years.

Mr. Hoy: So many figures are being bandied about. What proof is there that this fall was entirely due to drift netting?

Mr. Hendry: These figures have been given by the General Manager of the Aberdeen Harbour Board, whose word I am quite prepared to take. These are figures of fish caught and recorded. I will give the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) the details of the figures for each of the ten years from 1952 to 1962 if he wishes, but he can take it that my arithmetic has been checked and that the average number is 2,703.

Mr. Hoy: I am not disputing the hon. Member's arithmetic. I am questioning his logic. His figures are probably all right, but what proof does he have that the fall is entirely due to drift netting?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hendry: I had better give the hon. Member the benefit of the figures for each of the ten years, although I had not wanted to waste time with that. They range from 4,918 in 1954, the highest, to 1,419 in 1957, the lowest. The figure for this year is 582. If the hon. Member has any doubt about the cause of the drop, I invite him to come to Aberdeen on any night he likes and to watch the number of boats off Girdle Ness forming a curtain of nylon to prevent the fish from getting into the river. That is happening not only every day, but every night, including Sundays. No attention is being paid to the weekly close time, so far as one can see from the landings, and the result is that approximately only one fish in five is being caught by traditional methods.
I turn from traditional methods of netting fish in tidal waters to the numbers of fish caught by traditional angling methods in the upper rivers. These upper rivers are vital in my constituency because of the importance of the tourist industry. During the Easter Recess I


made particular inquiries about the fishing in the Dee, the river I know best. In the three months constituting the spring run, in a stretch which is not a laird stretch but a hotel stretch, with eight miles of bank, giving fishing to many visitors to my constituency and employment to many people, 129 fish were caught in 1961, but only 28 in 1962. My arithmetic is open to correction, but I make that approximately the same percentage of fish caught in the upper river by traditional angling methods as by traditional netting methods lower down—21·5 per cent. up the river and 21·8 per cent. down, as near as makes no difference.
This is extremely serious for the hundreds of men who are employed directly and indirectly in the salmon fishing industry in the north of Scotland and right round the coast of Scotland. It is not only the men in the estuaries but the ghillies and others engaged in the industry up the river who are extremely despondent and who are leaving their jobs in despondency.
In the hotel stretch I have mentioned there was only one fisherman last week who had taken up his reservation. Half way through the week he had not caught a fish. He was completely disgusted and he told the ghillie to carry on with the fishing and to try to catch a fish during the rest of the week. The ghillie was an expert fisherman but in that eight-mile stretch he caught only one fish.
This sort of situation is extremely serious for a constituency like mine, where so much depends on the salmon rivers and has a serious effect on the population of this part of Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, the effect is likely to be more serious in the long run. The effect will be felt not so much now, but in five years, when there will be literally no fish coming up these rivers unless something is done quickly this year to make sure that the breeding stocks get up the river. If they do not, we will have a completely blank year in another five years and we will lose that tremendously valuable heritage that we have in Scotland.
The drift netters are literally killing the fish that lay the golden eggs. They are depriving us in Scotland of one of

our most valuable heritages. Unless something is done this month, or at the latest in the middle of next month, there will be no fish in the rivers. I impress on the House the urgency of this, and in the interests of the Scottish salmon fishing industry I plead with the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Mackie: I intervene in this discussion because I think that the picture has been put one-sidedly by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). Like everybody else, I do not wish to see the rivers depleted of fish, but I think that the case should be put fairly.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) gave figures for fish caught by the drift netters, but he gave only percentages of what was caught by the stake netters. This is not a fair way of putting the case. If the numbers are the same, then surely the drift netters who have discovered a new way of catching salmon have as much right to continue to catch them? Therefore, unless hon. Gentlemen produce figures to show that more salmon are being caught by drift netters than by traditional stake nets and drag nets, they have not a case.
When stake and drag netters operate, they do everything they can—other than at weekends and during the close period—to see that not one fish goes up river. As a boy I spent many hours watching these fishermen, and anyone who has watched them at work will have seen that they do not allow even one fish to go up river if they can help it, but of course fish can go up at the weekends and during the close period.
Rod fishing has been bad this year, but I too went home at Easter and consulted fishermen in the area. They say that fishing has been just as bad in previous years, and that the cold spring has been bad for rod fishing. Because rod fishing is bad it is not proof that fish are not getting up the river.
There is no doubt that some control is necessary, but the fact that these fishermen have discovered a modern way to catch salmon is no reason for imposing this restriction. I am amazed at the attitude of the stake netters and drag netters and others who ask why the drift netters do not take fish like everyone else and


pay rent for doing so. The drift netters' reply, and a good one, is, "Why don't you buy a boat and a seine net?"
This principle of modernising a method of doing something applies to almost everything. I am a farmer, and I would have no ground for complaint if, by using modern methods, somebody grew more potatoes than I did. It is stupid to object to the introduction of modern methods and I think that before any action is taken it must be proved that more fish are being caught by this new method. If this is the case, then of course some control will be necessary but I think that it would be a bad thing if the Government took this step without giving it ample consideration. I know that the Government have appointed a Committee, but the Government propose to apply this law before the Committee reports, and I think that this is most unfair.

Sir John Gilmour: I am opposed to the Amendment, and I start by declaring an interest because I am the owner of salmon fishing rights in the River Forth. My constituency has the Tay on the one side, and the Forth on the other.
Like the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), I do not think that we have had a very fair assessment of how the matter stands at the moment. I agree that there must be control on fishing, but, as the matter stands now, it seems apparent from what has been happening this year, that the low temperature of the water has had an effect on river fishing and that a great deal of drift netting has been done further out. This is common knowledge. They have been getting good fish eight to ten miles out. They have had good catches off Girdle Ness, 4½ miles out.
I cannot see the justice of prohibiting our men from fishing and then handing it over to foreigners to do it instead. I feel that some different method of approach should have been made. I underline this question of fishing outside the three-mile limit because in St. Andrews Bay we have a Polish fishing fleet sitting off the mouth of the Tay for weeks and months on end throughout the summer and no one seems to know what fish they are catching,

although they are just outside the three-mile limit.
I think that we will get more information from the Committee that has been appointed, but is it likely that all the fish that are being caught by drift netters are spawning fish? On the other hand, we know that all fish caught by river nets are fish going up to spawn. There is no doubt that drift netting is, to a certain extent, a method of control, because the boat must come back to refuel. It cannot be at sea the whole time. River nets, apart from the weekend and the close time, are, in a more elaborate way than any drift netting could possibly be, a stop to fish coming into the river mouth.
For those reasons I feel that the case against the drift netters has been overstated. In my constituency earnings over ten weeks averaged between £17 and £18 per man on drift netting, and I do not consider this to be an exorbitant figure. I am in favour of a method of control in due course, but I cannot support a measure which would encourage foreigners to take fish which our men would be prohibited from taking.

Mr. Willis: I think that from the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) we have had a rather more balanced approach to this problem than we had at the beginning of this discussion. Both bon. Members tried to put the point of view that we tried to put in Committee, namely, that the Government ought to find out much more about this matter and give rather more thought to the solution of the problem than they had done up to the time when the Committee was considering the Bill.
Last summer, in another place, the Government said, through their spokesman, that that was What they would do. They were not satisfied that the evidence was sufficiently strong to take the action which was being demanded by noble Lords in another place, who said, only ten months ago, that there was no reliable evidence to show whether the level of drift netting which had taken place so far was likely to have a damaging effect on stocks. They went on to say that Government research scientists were also looking into other factors. We pleaded for this in Committee.
There is no difference between us as to the necessity for preserving Scottish salmon stocks, but this sudden objection to somebody's taking the salmon in large numbers in not new. I pointed out in Committee that the first Report of the Scottish Fisheries contained the whole history of the long controversy that took place almost a century ago between the landed proprietors, on the one hand, and the stake net fishermen, on the other. The landed proprietors in those days were saying exactly the same about the people who were fishing at the river mouths as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said today about the drift-net fishermen.
In other words, emotions tend to run rather high on this matter, and views become rather exaggerated. During the last century the Government made certain inquiries in the matter. Salmon stocks were being depleted at a high rate, and legislation was passed placing certain prohibitions upon catching salmon at river mouths. A balance was struck. The Government did not tell those people who were fishing at the river mouths that they must not take any salmon. They struck a balance between the two conflicting interests, and the Under-Secretary will probably agree that that balance worked fairly well until a year or two ago.
8.30 p.m.
Now we have the advent of the drift-net fishermen, with their nylon nets—I do not know whether they are made in my constituency, but I have a shrewd idea that they are—and we should approach this problem in a similar way. I am not certain what the Tory philosophy is on this matter, but I should have thought that there was no justification for saying to one set of men, "You must not earn anything from this", while telling another set of men that they can do all the earning—in other words, giving a monopoly to a certain group of fishermen. That seems to be what the clamour is for at the moment.
I am not sure whether that is the right answer. It may be, but I should have thought that it would be much better if measures of control were instituted to enable both sides in the argument to make a living out of this occupation—although I realise that the

inshore fishermen also have another sort of income. We should try to do something along those lines. We might try to reduce the close period each week for those fishing at the river mouths, at the same time limiting the amount of fishing done by drift-net fishermen. The Government ought to obtain full information on this matter, so that they can reach a balanced view between the conflicting interests, with a view to doing justice to all those concerned, at the same time conserving Scottish salmon stocks.
I recognise the importance of the problem, but it would be wrong to rush in hurriedly and make the drift netters cease operations immediately. The Government are acting fairly quickly in the matter. They are making full inquiries, and that procedure ought to continue.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I endorse what has been said by the last three hon. Members. If there were to be a Division on the Bill I should have to abstain, in order to demonstrate my concern at what seems to me to be hurried and unjust legislation by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the drift-netting problem.
The Clauses affecting drift netting seem to have been introduced quite arbitrarily in a Bill which should have concentrated upon the reorganisation of the fishing industry, consequent upon the Fleck Report. In fact, these Clauses are based on prejudice and not on fact. The Hunter Committee, which has now been set up to examine the facts of the situation, has only just begun to hear evidence. The drift netters have had to face the kind of case which was put out, and of which we have had an example, in the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson).

Mr. Hendry: Has my hon. Friend looked at the figures which have been given to him, supplied by the Aberdeen Harbour Board?

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am not seeking to dispute those figures nor do I seek to dispute the sincerity with which they


have been presented, but I certainly seek to dispute the conclusions that are drawn from them without any consideration of the other factors. I put it to the House that it is difficult to get a balanced view of the problem and its solution when those figures are presented in that way.
No one can deny that considerable damage—possibly even total damage—can be done by a thousand yards of drift net spread across a river mouth and floating in with the tide. No one would seek to deny it. None of us, either, who look for a more balanced approach would deny that we must have some control of this problem; but to legislate without the facts and simply on this kind of argument seems to me unjust to the fishermen.
One thing to which I object very much is the way the drift netters are presented to the country by people who are opposed to their activities as regards salmon. These men have been faced with a bias from the start. They saw a profitable line of activity and they sought to pursue it. They realised that the whole force of the Government was being directed to stop them and they naturally took action to try to make as much as they could while they could. But they are reasonable men. They know as well as any of us that one should not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. They are the kind of men who, if consulted, would have been prepared to engage in any measures necessary to preserve stocks and to see that an adequate living was obtained by all concerned.
That brings me to my final point in which I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who was the first to speak from this side of the House against the Amendment. It is intolerable for the local fisherman to be prohibited from drift netting outside the three-mile limit. It is as intolerable for him to see a foreigner able to prosecute that livelihood as it is for the man in my part of the world to see a foreign trawler trawling in the Moray Firth; sweeping up shoals of young fish, damaging his living and thus forcing him to seek alternative means of livelihood, such as drift-netting for salmon.

Mr. Hoy: The amount of emotion which is aroused when we discuss salmon fishing is amazing. It was exemplified by the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who failed even to stop to think about what was being asked of him. When he was questioned about the figures which he supplied, he did not appreciate that no one was casting any doubts on them. Apparently, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) was able to follow the matter and was questioning the deductions drawn from his figures by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West.
From the figures supplied by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West one might doubt whether drift netting was having the effect which was stated, because in the comparative seasons quoted by the hon. Member, before drift netting was heard of, the catch, according to his figures which had been more than 4,000 fell to 1,400. Using the hon. Member's own comparison one can infer from the figures that the position was worse before drift netting took place.

Mr. Hendry: I have not now the figures before me, but I think that the hon. Member is doing me an injustice in saying that the figure fell from 4,000 to 1,400 in consecutive seasons. Speaking from memory, the figures I gave related to 1952 and 1957.

Mr. Hoy: In any case, the figures used and the comparison made showed a wide fluctuation before drift netting took place. I will put it no higher than that. The drift netters could not be accused of causing this reduction.
Hon. Members on this side of the House would join with the Government, or anyone else, in taking action if we felt that this type of fishing, or any other, would seriously deplete the stock of fish in our waters. No one more than myself has stressed the need for the Government to take steps to conserve the fish in our fishing grounds, whether salmon or white fish. But when we begin to discuss the matter the figures which are quoted get bigger and bigger. They are like the stories told by fishermen about the fish which they have caught. The fish gets bigger every time the story is told.
The net referred to by the lion. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) gets larger and larger. Tonight, the hon. Member referred to one which would be large enough the stretch the whole length of Princes Street in Edinburgh—from Waverley Station to the Caledonian Station, exactly a mile long. It is a good job that we shall not be having another debate, or I might find a street into which to fit the net.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I said that the latest development is that boats are fishing in teams of eleven each with 150 yards of net, so that, with the space occupied by each boat, there is a solid wall about a mile long. I did not mean that the net was a mile long.

Mr. Hoy: I am not misinterpreting what the hon. Member said. He said that this joining together of ten or eleven boats fitted one continuous net a mile long. It has doubled in size since we were in Standing Committee.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: The fishermen are not having a sort of guerrilla battle.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns does not do his case any good by the sort of argument he has employed. When we were in Standing Committee he wanted to call out the troops to deal with this problem.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) must not—I repeat, not—put words in my mouth which I did not use here or in Committee. What I said was that range-finding implements were being used from the cliff top to ascertain whether these boats were fishing in the three-mile limit. I did not want to call out the troops, but I said that this was happening.

Mr. Hoy: I was not exaggerating. When one is dealing with guerrilla warfare and searchlight batteries are brought into operation, surely it is a kind of warfare. The hon. Member does not do his case any good when he exaggerates in this way.
I am surprised at the facility with which hon. Members provide figures about catches. It is about time that they found employment in the Scottish Office,

because the Statistical Department of the Scottish Office cannot produce figures with the alacrity and efficiency with which those hon. Members can. The Scottish Office cannot do it in regard to legalised fishing. That is why we have some doubt about the figures which have been used in support of the case made by some hon. Members.
The drift-net fisherman is a reasonable fisherman. I remind the House that the drift-net fishermen went to the Scottish Office and said that they did not want any more fish than were necessary to be taken out of the rivers or the sea. They made this offer to the Scottish Office at a meeting with the Under-Secretary, which he cannot deny. They said, "We would like to come to some agreement on this. We would like to have a close season for salmon fishing." They also said, "We would like to close all the fishing grounds every week-end, even during the season." They said, "If necessary, we are quite prepared to play our part in helping to make payments for restocking and maintaining rivers."
They offered all this to the Scottish Office. The Under-Secretary cannot deny it. These were the proposals put to him when the drift-net fishermen met the hon. Gentleman at St. Andrews House on 10th July last year. Let it be clearly understood that the drift-net fishermen were not being unreasonable. They made their proposals in what I thought a very sensible way.
It is no use the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns saying that because salmon could be caught everyone would rush down to collect a boat—these were his words—and rush off to the salmon fishing grounds. That is complete nonsense, because it costs hundreds of pounds to provide these nets. It costs about £600 for a set of nets. When the Under-Secretary met the drift-net fishermen last year, it was said that the total catch was about 5,600 salmon over a period of eight or nine weeks. Mr. Collin said at the meeting that it was estimated that the catch by the Berwick Salmon Fisheries Company was five or six times more than that. If there is a depletion of the stock perhaps the Government had better look into the way in which these private companies are catching salmon.
We are also well aware of the employment that this gives to the men engaged in salmon fishing in the old sense. The number is about 1,700. I do not want to minimise the contribution made to our economy, but it ought to be dearly said that that does not represent employment for 1,700 men for twelve months in the year. Surely the Under-Secretary does not claim that, in fact, it provides employment for them for, maybe, four or five months in a year.

Mr. Leburn: Mr. Leburn indicated assent.

Mr. Hoy: The Under-Secretary agrees with me. Let us get this into proper proportion. It may be true to say that full-time employment is given to a fifth of that number and when the salmon season is over these men have to find other employment. In view of the appalling employment situation in Scotland today, anything which makes a contribution to employment is valuable, but let us keep this matter in proper perspective. Let us realise that if we have to write off that number of men there are hundreds of men earning a living drift-netting for salmon, so we are seeking to deny one group at the expense of another.
I say to the Under-Secretary that the man responsible for this trouble at the moment is the Secretary of State for Scotland because these Clauses should never be in the Bill.
I repeat what I said upstairs. The Secretary of State promised us a Bill to deal with this problem. He said in the House that he would introduce a Bill the main provisions of which would deal with salmon fishing. Instead, he inserted four Clauses into this Bill, which deals with the sea fish industry. Having done that and hoping to pass the Bill into an Act of Parliament he then said that he would have an inquiry into the whole question- That is not the way to do the business of the House.
I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) that we must give justice as far as is humanly possible to the people whom we represent. We cannot do it, however, by first hanging the man, as used to be done at Jedburgh, and then having a trial to find whether he should have been hanged. In the same way, the Secretary of State should not impose

these prohibitions by Act of Parliament and then say that he will have an inquiry to find whether they are justified. That is the wrong way of going about it.
The Under-Secretary will get all the co-operation that is required from every Member of the House if it is found necessary to take steps for conserving the salmon fisheries. The wider fishing grounds of the North Sea and elsewhere have been over-fished due to lack of agreements between the countries concerned. There could have been an opportunity for Europe to show a little cooperation. The same thing might well happen to the salmon fisheries, but nobody in the House would want it to happen. Therefore, we would be delighted to help the Government in taking steps to conserve the salmon fisheries and to give a fair deal not only to those in traditional fishing for salmon, but to the drift-net fishermen, also.
I had hoped that the Government would not rush this legislation forward at the last minute, because these men have invested considerable sums of money in their work. The extraordinary thing is that nobody has suggested how they should be compensated for the capital which they have invested in the industry. Until such time as the Government can find out, they should delay taking these steps. Whatever happens, by September the Bill will be in force. Let the Secretary of State urge upon the committee which he has appointed the necessity of speeding up that part of the report which affects this industry. If it is found necessary as a result of inquiry to take measures to conserve the salmon fisheries in the interests of all concerned, I can guarantee to the Under-Secretary the support of those who occupy the benches on this side of the House.

Mr. Leburn: Having listened to the debate, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that we are dealing with a difficult and complex problem. No unanimous view is held on either side of the House or by any individuals in it. That is one of the troubles that has worried my right hon. Friend and myself throughout the whole period. The only comments to which I take exception in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) were when he said that a bias was shown against the drift-net fishermen. It simply is not true.


My right hon. Friend and I have given hours, weeks and months of thought to the subject to try to get the right answer—not an answer which meets with the general approval of hon. Members opposite, or, for that matter, of my hon. Friends, but to try to get the right answer at least.
We have been faced with two particular problems. One has been the interests of the established fisheries. The much more important one has been the need for conservation of our stocks of salmon, which are a great national asset. We all agree about that. The one thing on which we are on common ground on both sides of the House tonight, as we were on common ground in Committee, is the need for conservation and taking such steps as are necessary to ensure that permanent damage is not done.
As I have tried to explain to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) before, one of our troubles has been that if we left this matter too long we might have woken up one morning to find that we had done irreparable damage. Therefore, it may be that we cannot wait until we have the findings of the Hunter Committee. I do not want to cover all this ground again, because here we have the three Clauses giving the Government power to introduce Orders either to prohibit or to license landing. That is not what we are discussing in the Amendment. What we are discussing in the Amendment is whether or not we should implement these powers in Clause 10 either on 15th May or whenever the Bill is passed.
Hon. Members will agree that many of the remarks which have been made tonight would have been more appropriately made when the time comes for the Government to lay an Order under any of these Clauses.
What we are discussing is whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) suggests in the Amendment, the minute we have the Bill we should take powers to prohibit drift netting. I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland and my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) are very concerned lest the fishing for salmon by drift netting which is now taking place, should do serious damage. Therefore, they

want my right hon. Friend to bring in an Order at the very earliest possible moment.
When we discussed this Clause in Committee I explained that my right hon. Friend proposed, and for that matter still proposes, that when the powers are available to him to make an Order prohibiting drift netting for salmon off Scotland and off the Tweed it would take place from 15th September this year. The issue between us on dates is fairly narrow. We must be realistic. We do not know exactly when we shall get the Bill. We do not know when it will receive the Royal Assent. It will certainly take some weeks yet. It has to go to another place. It has to be discussed there. It has to go through the various stages in that House. It then has to receive the Royal Assent.

Mr. John M. Temple: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Minister will enter into consultations with the various interested bodies before the Bill becomes an Act so that the Orders can be brought forward reasonably quickly? The Minister has given an assurance about consultation, but consultation will take time.

Mr. Leburn: It is true that my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that he will have consultations before he brings forward an Order. I should like to consider whether it is wise to hold consultations before or after the Royal Assent.
9.0 p.m.
Then we have to lay the two necessary Orders and, if a later Amendment is accepted tonight, one of those Orders will require an affirmative Resolution. If we are realistic, we must appreciate that it will be towards the end of June or the beginning of July before we get those Orders. That means that what is between my hon. Friend and myself is a period of about six or eight weeks.
I know that my hon. Friend describes this form of fishing as vandalism. We can all have our own opinion as to what is the best description, but we must also bear in mind that this practice has in no way been illegal, and these fishermen have a public right of fishing. All Governments have to consider very carefully, and have to


give reasonable notice, before taking away a public right. We are here considering—and, I think, with certain justification—taking away that public right, and I do not think that it would be right just to rush it through. That is why I made it known in Committee that it was at that time—and, for that matter, still is—my right hon. Friend's intention that the prohibition should be as from 15th September.
In fairness to my hon. Friend, however, I must also remind the House that when I made that comment I said that if the Committee that had recently been appointed to consider salmon and trout fisheries indicated that it would soon be able to give an interim report on the regulation of fishing—and my right hon. Friend has asked it to do that—my right hon. Friend would take that into account. Therefore, if the Committee's report were to be available in time, my right hon. Friend would consider the matter; if not, he still has the intention to place before the House Orders to be effective as from 15th September.
Having said that I think that there may be more appropriate times to discuss whether or not an Order should be brought before the House, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) that a number of figures have been bandied about in this debate. The figure that I accept, and can confirm as being approximately right, is that so far the total catch this year is about 33,500 fish. On the other hand, I hope that my hon. Friend will remember when he quotes such figures as he did that it cannot necessarily in a specific case be attributed to drift netting; we have had a cold spring, it may well be that there is no water in the rivers, and so on. What is indisputable is that, so far, about 33,500 fish have been caught by drift net.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland is concerned lest the continuation of drift-net fishing for salmon should have an adverse effect on the established fisheries and on our stocks. I can assure him that the Government share his concern about the possible damage which prolonged continuation or a further ex-

pansion of this fishing might bring about, but as we are here talking about taking away a public right, and as in Committee I indicated the date which my right hon. Friend had in mind, and as there is only a matter of six or eight weeks between us, I ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11.—(LICENSING OF BRITISH FISHING BOATS.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 36, leave out "those limits" and insert "the limits of those territorial waters".—[Mr. Vane.]

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, after "shall" to insert:
in the case of a contravention committed after the passing of this Act".
It may be convenient to take with this Amendment three other Government Amendments, in page 14, line 10, in page 16, line 26, and in page 30, line 43.
These four Amendments all refer to one particular point which I think will commend itself to all hon. Members. It makes sure that there shall be no retrospection with regard to anyone incurring certain penalties for certain offences under this Bill. I do not think anybody will reproach me if I do not make a long speech on the Amendments.
The first deals with forfeiture of fish caught by a person while contravening a licensing requirement. It needs two Amendments to effect the purpose we all want, and there must also be an Amendment to a Schedule. The second Amendment deals with Clause 13 which enable fines to be imposed instead of forfeiture of fish in cases of breaches of orders restricting fishing. The third is to Clause 16, which increases the maximum amount of fines which can be imposed on foreign vessels fishing within British territorial waters. The Bill has not in it words precisely saying that any offences committed before the passing of the Bill shall not be liable to incur these penalties. I think that it would be the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House if we made sure about that point.

Mr. Peart: For the Opposition I would say that we welcome these Amendments and in no way oppose them. We regard


them as necessary. As the Minister has rightly said, this is to prevent any person who may have incurred a penalty under the Bill from being penalised retrospectively. We think that this is reasonable. The Amendments cover the three main points the hon. Gentleman has dealt with, including forfeiture of fish, and fines. I hope that the Amendments will go through quickly, and so the hon. Gentleman need not apologise for making a brief speech. Brevity will be welcomed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(ADDITIONAL FINE INSTEAD OF FORFEITURE.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 10, at end insert:
being an offence committed after the passing of this Act".—[Mr. Vane.]

Clause 16.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN SEA-FISHING BOATS.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 26, at end insert:
(2) This section shall not apply in relation to any contravention of the said section seven committed before the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Vane.]

Clause 20.—(POWER TO PROHIBIT IMPOR- TATION OF SHELLFISH IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, in page 18, line 40, at the end to insert:
save that an agent or broker shall only be taken to contravene an order if he had knowledge of the existence and effect of the order".
In Committee, we sought to protect the broker or agent in question. We sought to secure a rewording of subsection (2) to see whether or not a formula could be found to protect an agent or broker from an unjustifiable burden of responsibility. We think that the present Amendment is reasonable and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a favourable reply. It is true that it has been argued, and no doubt it will be argued again today, that brokers and agents, in the ordinary way, are persons most likely to be aware of regulations governing the import of goods and that, therefore, there should be a measure of responsibility upon them and they should be liable for any contravention.

Mr. Vane: As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has just said, we discussed this question in Committee without a great deal of difference of opinion. We all wanted to ensure that we were not placing an undue burden of responsibility on anyone connected with the transaction of importing shellfish. At the end of the debate I said that I would look at the matter again, although I thought that the original form of words in the Bill was probably the right one. I have looked at the matter carefully and I cannot advise the House to do other than what I advised the Committee to do, which was to leave the words as they are in the Bill.
I hope that I shall be able to show the hon. Member that this is not unreasonable. We are not setting out to prosecute and we are not mainly interested in prosecuting people here. We are concerned with maintaining healthy shellfish stocks around our shores and the improvement of what ought to be a much more valuable asset than it is at present. The Committee wanted us to be sure that the rules were not tilted in favour of the inspector and against someone who was doing his best to carry out a perfectly proper transaction and who, unaware of certain rules, would be under a handicap when it came to court. It was suggested that we were being unduly hard on the agent.
We must accept that when somebody engaged in these transactions employs an agent he does so, first and foremost, because the agent is an expert and knows more about the rules of the game of imports and exports than he does. The hon. Member for Workington will appreciate that it would be difficult to prove in many cases that an agent or broker who imported shellfish in contravention of an Order had knowledge of the existence of the Order and it would defeat our intention if, in practice, a plea of ignorance would mean that an agent or broker would be able to get off scot-free whatever the circumstances.
9.15 p.m.
The plea that an offender did not know what he was doing is not really acceptable under our law, and I think that we are following our normal rules in leaving this Clause as it is now


worded. I do not think that in practice agents are likely to suffer any hardship from this provision. First, they would not be in the job if they did not know the rules and regulations. It is their business to know them. Our courts are not harsh. We must admit that whatever words we put in Bills, a few hard cases may result. However, our courts do not take a harsh view. But the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that experienced people acting as agents are unlikely to break the law without realising that they are doing so.
To insert the proposed words would, or could, largely destroy our object, which is to improve our shellfish stocks. Therefore, when I ask the House to leave the Clause as it stands, it is not because we are interested in prosecuting people but because we are interested in improving the stocks of shellfish around our coasts.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in Committee we were rather suspicious of the Government because throughout the Bill the Government have been seeking extra powers to impose restrictions not only upon our fishermen, but upon people connected even with the inshore fishing industry and our shellfish industry. For that reason, we were anxious to make certain that the powers of the State or of officers acting on behalf of the State were somewhat limited. At the same time, I appreciate the case that the Minister has made, that the officers will act reasonably and that the courts will act reasonably in deciding whether or not there has been a contravention of the law. In other words, the old doctrine of the plea of ignorance will not hold water and there will be no excuse for a responsible agent or a broker acting in this way.
I accept that the purpose of the Clause dealing with the shellfish industry is to prevent the importation, in particular, of diseased stocks which would infect our own shellfish stock. I know there is force in the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, we were merely trying to put a little bias on those concerned with the industry. As always, the Tory Government seek powers to give representatives of the State greater power over the individual. That is a rather strange doctrine for the Tory

Party, but, nevertheless, they have done this in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is making a second speech, he requires the leave of the House. If he is seeking to withdraw his Amendment he reminds me of the story of a gentleman at the Bar who took thirty minutes to explain why he was offering no evidence.

Mr. Peart: I am offering no evidence, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I did not ask for the leave of the House to explain why I should make a second intervention. But perhaps I am making a rather lengthy intervention to explain why I do not propose to appose what the Minister has said. For the reasons which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS UNDER SS. 19 AND 20.)

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, in page 19, line 33, after "identification", to insert:
in the presence of the person or persons concerned".
This Amendment deals with a point similar to the last one, which I raised in Committee. As penalties may be imposed on individuals who may contravene this part of our legislation, identification becomes a matter of importance when dealing with samples. The Minister promised to look at this matter again.
We propose the insertion of these words because we believe that if identification is to take place it must be done before the people who are affected. In other words, we seek to restrict the power of the State through its officials. I should have thought that we should have had a sympathetic response from hon. Members opposite, but that has been singularly lacking on the Bill. I am surprised at hon. Members opposite, who care so much for the rights of the individual and who have preached so often the doctrine, "We must restrict State liberty."
On this major fishing Bill they remain silent. Even at this late hour I should have thought that some hon. Members opposite would have shown us a measure of sympathy when we seek to protect the rights of the individual, but I know that sympathy is not forthcoming.

Mr. Vane: I am a little surprised by the last few sentences of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), because when we were discussing this Amendment and others in Standing Committee I thought that both sides were trying to find words which they thought most appropriate to the Bill, and that all appreciated the argument that we should not allow anything to be done that could make undue difficulty for a person who had contravened a prohibition order if he had to appear in court.
I said that I would look at this matter again. I said then, and I repeat, that we are not mainly interested in prosecuting people. We are concerned in maintaining healthy shellfish. The hon. Gentleman referred in Standing Committee to the National Agricultural Advisory Service and said how helpful it had been to farmers. He hoped that the fishery inspectors would fulfil the same kind of rôle towards these people. That is the sort of spirit in which we discussed this matter upstairs, and it is a pity that we should start slipping back now.
I have done what I promised. I have considered this again to see if it was possible to protect the individual so that he would not be taken to court by anyone who had a bit of a grudge against him because a diseased shellfish had got into a bottle with a label on it, and because he should have known better, etc. It is difficult for us to put in the Bill words which will really achieve that aim, because the inspector's job, particularly in taking samples, is not mainly concerned with prosecuting people, but with the combatting of disease.
It will normally be the case that an inspector who wants to build up a bond of confidence between himself and those interested in fishing for shellfish will always tell them what he is about. There may be occasions when he wants to take a sample in order, perhaps, to save making a special journey, but when it might be inconvenient for the person concerned to be present. It would be a pity to put in words making it impossible for an inspector to take a sample.
I can go some way to help the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment, as worded, would mean that an inspector could never take a sample unless the

owner or any other person concerned was present. Yet it might be highly inconvenient for these persons to be present on a particular occasion, and thus the inspector might have to make a special journey. On the other hand, a person might be awkward and arrange never to be present during any visit of the inspector. If the Amendment were accepted, the Bill would allow an awkward man to prevent an inspector ever taking samples. We are more concerned here with healthy shellfish stocks than with the convenience or inconvenience of any particular person.
Again, it might be necessary for an inspector to take action quickly in some case, and it would be a serious disadvantage if he came up against somebody who was awkward. There are rare cases where a man might think that a prosecution was likely to follow something which he had done, and the words suggested by the hon. Gentleman might make it impossible ever to bring a prosecution because that person could make it impossible for any sample ever to be taken. Such cases will be rare, but are not too far fetched.
We do see the force of the argument that we should give the maximum help to the men responsible for the shellfish beds. If it helps the House, my right hon. Friend, to safeguard owners in the way hon. Gentlemen would like, says that he will issue instructions to the inspectors that, whenever samples are taken, the owners, grantees, or their representatives must be given, wherever possible, a reasonable opportunity of being present and seeing them labelled.
I believe that by doing that administratively we would meet the hon. Member's view and, at the same time, save us perhaps from having the whole purpose of this Clause defeated by the awkward person—and we cannot guarantee that we will never come up against somebody of that sort. In view of that explanation and assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that we have more than sympathy with the points and arguments put to us in Committee.

Mr. Peart: With the leave of the House, I only wish to say that I am glad that the Minister has accepted, to use his own words, the "force of the argument", and that administrative arrangements will now be made to meet


our point, even though legislative arrangements cannot be made by including our Amendment in the Clause.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should use the argument of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. We are here dealing with officers who are to take certain actions which may lead to individuals being placed in a position in which they may be prosecuted. We are here dealing with a Clause concerned with offences and fines, and it is not fair to compare what would happen under this Clause with the actions of our national advisory officers in the field of agricultural services.
I hope that fishery officers will be more like the members of the N.A.A.S., but here we are dealing with penalties. This Clause means that the owners or the brokers or the persons named, if they contravene this legislation, may be prosecuted, and can be placed at a considerable disadvantage. The position of these people is quite different from that of a farmer who has been given advice by the members of the N.A.A.S., and I am rather surprised that the Minister should use that rather false analogy.

Mr. Vane: It was not an exact analogy. It was the hon. Gentleman who raised that particular point.

Mr. Peart: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can say that I raised it in that way. I have argued that fishery officers should act in a similar way to the officers of the N.A.A.S., but in no way is their job the same as it would be under Clause 21. We were merely trying to protect the individual. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has accepted our point. I hope he will concede our argument generously, although he will not accept our reasons for wanting to include the Amendment in the Bill. He admits that administrative action will be taken, so that at least we have an admission of the Government to do something.
We have had the concession that the Minister will give instructions to his fishery officers that owners and other representatives will have a reasonable opportunity to be there when the sample is taken, and we are grateful for it. We are merely saying that we have prodded the Government so far.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 22.—(PUBLIC FISHERIES.)

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 20, line 17, to leave out "(howsoever derived".
This is a small Amendment simply designed to remove any possible source of doubt about the meaning of the Clause. It refers to the words "(howsoever derived)" in the context of the rights of shell fishing, and these words appear in subsection (1, b). This paragraph provides that the Minister's powers to cleanse and restock shellfish beds do not apply to any beds where a private right of fishery exists, and the words "(howsoever derived)" were included with the intention of making it clear that it makes no difference how the private right came into being. If a private right exists, the Minister has no power to do the work of cleansing and restocking out of public funds.
In fact, these words do not add anything to the legal meaning of the Clause since the fact that the paragraph refers simply to waters in which a person has an exclusive right to fish without saying anything about the source of his rights is enough in itself to cover every possible case. But it has been suggested that the words do even more than that and might be held to legalise a situation in which a person was illegally claiming a right to a private fishery.
While I am advised that they could not in fact bear such a construction, we do not wish to encourage any such ideas and we are therefore removing the words "howsoever derived", which we can do without in any way harming the sense of the Clause. In other words, it would appear that these words do not contribute anything to the Clause and only lead to possible misunderstanding. The Amendment is designed to take them out.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(POWERS OF GRANTEES OF REGULATED FISHERIES.)

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 22, line 44 to leave out "authorising the doing of anything" and to insert:
may authorise the dredging, fishing for or taking of shellfish".
This Amendment is not entirely dissimilar from the last. It is designed to


remove the possibility of a wrong impression being given of the meaning which the Clause is intended to have Clause 25 deals with the powers of the grantees of regulated fisheries to restrict the number of persons who may be given licences to fish in the area of the fishery. Subsection (2) refers to the fact that persons may be prohibited from dredging, fishing for or taking shellfish within the limits of the fishery, while in subsection (4) there is a reference to the fact that the number of licences may be controlled by the grantees of the fishery who may also determine the kind of fishing which the licence may allow.
Since it is clear that licences can be concerned only with the activities to which subsection (2) refers, that is, with fishing for shell fish and nothing else, it was not felt necessary to repeat the words of subsection (2) but merely to refer to
the doing of anything".
leaving it to be understood by the reader that all that could be authorised was fishing for shell fish.
But that seems to have been a mistake, because the discussion in Committee showed that the more careless reader might think that that would authorise the issue of licences for any purpose whatsoever. We wish to remove the possibility of any such suggestion being made by replacing the words about the doing of anything by others which repeat the words in subsection (2) and so make it abundantly clear that licences may be concerned only with the rights to fish for shell fish.

Mr. Peart: I am sure that the Minister is right and I will only say that in Committee we argued that there should be more precision. The Minister has read an excellent brief which seems to be a lot of "gobbledy gook", a certain amount of legal abracadabra, and I hope that he has been properly advised. I wish that we had the Solicitor-General here to advise us. In Committee we regretted that we did not have the advice of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General at some of our deliberations. We did have their advice later. I am sure that the Minister has been advised by his own legal department, and

because the Amendment aims at more precision we shall support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.—(GRANTS AND LOANS FOR RESTORATION OF OYSTER, MUSSEL AND COCKLE FISHERIES.)

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 23, line 38, to leave out paragraph (a).
It may be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the next Amendment in line 46. Clause 26 empowers Ministers to give financial assistance towards the restoration of shellfish beds affected by pests or disease. To make it clear which shellfish beds are eligible for assistance, the Clause sets them out in two paragraphs, one of which refers to beds in which any person has an exclusive right to fish, and the other to beds in a fishery established by Orders under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, or the Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Act, 1866.
In Committee, it was pointed out by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that there was a slight overlap here in that some Orders under these Acts created private exclusive rights to fish for shellfish, and so they were overlapping and came in both (a) and (b). These are drafting Amendments to correct this by describing in a different way the beds that qualify for assistance. There are still two paragraphs, but one refers to fisheries created by Orders under the 1866 and 1868 Acts, and the other to other fisheries which a person has an exclusive right to fish.
These two paragraphs will cover all the beds concerned, but without leaving any possibility of confusion which might be caused by having some fisheries covered by different provisions in the same Clause.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: In line 46 at end insert:
and
(b) to any other shellfish bed used for the propagation or cultivation of oysters, mussels or cockles, being a shellfish bed in respect of which a person has an exclusive right to take oysters, mussels or cockles."—[Mr. Soames.]

Clause 33.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 27, line 29, to leave out "spat or spawn" and to insert "or spat".
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss also the Amendment in line 30.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. If the House so pleases.

Mr. Leburn: These two Amendments make a change in the definition of "shellfish". Hon. Members who were on the Committee upstairs will remember that again the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) pointed out in this case that the definition provided that the term "shellfish" included any part of any spawn. He suggested that in normal circumstances it was perhaps a little difficult to divide a shellfish spawn, and that it really was not a practical possibility. These two Amendments tidy up this matter. While we can have part of a shellfish or spat, we cannot have part of a spawn.

Mr. Hoy: This is a most important Amendment. I think that we ought to record our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) Who introduced this, and indeed introduced definitions of which we had never heard.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 30 after "Shellfish", insert:
and any spawn of shellfish".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 28, line 3, to leave out "section seventeen" and insert "sections seventeen and eighteen".
Mr. Speaker, you may think that the Amendment in line 8, and the seven Amendments to Clause 35 should be taken with this one because they all concern the Clauses about Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. If the House so pleases.

Mr. Vane: I do not want to be charged by hon. Gentlemen with taking short cuts, but equally I do not want at this time to make too long a speech about a lot of points, none of which is really concerned with a matter of principle. I do not know how much the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leitlh (Mr. Hoy) would like me to explain.

Mr. Hoy: Fairly shortly.

Mr. Vane: The first two Amendments concern Clause 33, and are consequential on Amendments made in Committee. They are appropriate to the special position of Northern Ireland which we have to recognise throughout this Bill.
The first Amendment is concerned with the appointment of British sea fishery officers with limited powers. In that case it will be seen that the appropriate Minister for making the appointments is the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. That follows an earlier precedent.
The Amendment in Clause 35, page 29, line 11, is purely technical—to make it clear that the amended constitution of the White Fish Authority, which provides that it may consist of a larger number of members, applies in the same way as in the case of the earlier White Fish Authority. The second and third Amendments are on the same lines, except that they affect the Herring Industry Board.
I now come to something a little more complicated. As originally printed, in the First Schedule—which is now the Second Schedule—there was a single Amendment to the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933. During the course of our deliberations we made a second Amendment to that Act, and we must therefore be sure, when referring to the Schedule, that we are referring to the right one of those two Amendments. This is a purely drafting point, to ensure that we do not become confused between the two Amendments.
The last two Amendments, in lines 18 and 19, provide that Clause 15 and the First Schedule shall not apply to Northern Ireland. Clause 15 deals with the possession of under-sized fish, which is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government's domestic legislation, and the First Schedule consists of a long addition to the Bill, dealing with the procedure for fishery harbour charges in England and Wales, which have no relevance to Northern Ireland.
Even though this is rather a long catalogue of Amendments, there is nothing new in it The Amendments simply make the correct references in respect of Northern Ireland, and I hope that the House will agree to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 8, after "twelve", insert "and section eighteen".

In line 21, leave out "new vessel or a new" and insert "vessel or".—[Mr. Vane.]

Clause 34.—(ORDERS.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 29, line 5, at the end to insert:
(4) Where an order under subsection (1) of section seven of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959, is made so as to have effect in relation to salmon or migratory trout (whether it is made so as to have effect in relation to any other description of fish or not), then, if the order contains a statement in accordance with subsection (6) of section ten of this Act, the order shall be of no effect unless it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (4) of section twelve of the said Act of 1959, a statutory instrument containing an order to which the last preceding subsection applies shall not be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
The effect of the Amendment is to provide that any Order made under Section 7 (1) of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959, which prohibits fishing for salmon or trout, shall be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure unless the Order is made in pursuance of an international agreement. The Parliamentary procedure in relation to prohibition Orders under the 1959 Act is set out in Section 12 (4), which provides that any Orders made under Section 7 (1) of the Act shall be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. During our discussion in Committee some hon. Members opposite made it clear that they felt that Orders made under this power should be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, so that the House would have a fuller opportunity of considering their implications. I need not go into the matter any further. The effect of the Amendment is to achieve this purpose.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: It is only right to make it clear that the Amendment has been made at the request of the Opposition. We are grateful to the Minister for putting it on the Order Paper. We wanted to preserve the right of the House to discuss this matter when it came before it, and this was the only way it could be done. We are grateful

to the Minister for fulfilling the promise that he made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35.—(NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Amendments made: In page 29, line 11, after "seven", insert:
subsection (1) of section twenty-nine".

In line 33, leave out "and".

In line 34, at end insert:
and subsection (2) of section twenty-nine".

In page 30, line 7, after third "of", insert:
subsection (1) of section nine of".

In line 12, after "subsection", insert:
and of section thirteen thereof and the amendments effected by paragraphs 5, 10 and 25 of the Second Schedule thereto".

In line 18, after "fourteen", insert "fifteen".

In line 19, after "of", insert "and the First Schedule to".

Clause 36.—(AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS.)

Amendment made: In page 30, line 43, at end insert:
and the amendment by this Act of subsection (3) of section two of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1948, shall not have effect in relation to any contravention of subsection (1) of that section committed before the passing of this Act".

Second Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS.)

Amendments made: In page 35, line 44, leave out "new".

In page 36, line 2, at end insert:
and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following proviso:—
'Provided that no such grant shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of any secondhand vessel, engine part, equipment or apparatus'".

In page 37, line 18, leave out "new".

In page 37, line 24, at end insert:
and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following proviso:—
'Provided that no such grant shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of any secondhand vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus'".

In page 38, line 32, at end insert:
(4) In subsection (4) of that section, for the words "a new engine" there shall be substituted the words "an engine".—[Mr. Vane.]

Fourth Schedule.—(REPEALS AND REVOCATION.)

Amendment made: In page 42, line 54, column 3, at end insert:
and in subsection (3), the word 'new' in the first place where it occurs, and the words from 'and any such reference' to the end."—[Mr. Vane.]

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 43, line 17, column 3, at the beginning to insert "of".
This is a very small point. It is to correct what must be admitted is a minor drafting error in the Fourth Schedule. The words "this Act" appear twice in a Section and in order to distinguish exactly how many words are repealed we want to make sure to which of the two phrases "this Act" has reference. By the insertion of the word "of" in front of one of these phrases the meaning is clear and ambiguity is disposed of.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move in page 43, line 18, column 3, at the end to insert:
In section eight, paragraph (b) of subsection (2)".
This is a somewhat similar Amendment, but this Amendment has a history. The original omission was in the 1948 Act, for which we were not responsible. It was in fact put right in 1959, but it is now deemed more appropriate that we should have the procedure for dealing with Orders under the 1948 Act in a Clause in this Bill and not carried forward in a reference to the Schedule. At present, without this small Amendment, we should have the same provision repeated twice, once in the Schedule of the 1959 Act and again in this Bill, which, I hope the House will agree, is the right place.

Mr. Hoy: Every time we get an explanation from the Minister I cannot understand it. The hon. Gentleman said, first, that the responsibility for this lay with the Government of 1948, and then he said that it was corrected in 1959. I do not follow that, but I will accept his word for it.

Amendment agreed to.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like, first, to thank all hon. Members for the considerable amount

of work which has been put into the Bill. As a result of the combined efforts and knowledge of hon. Members, and with the thorough examination which took place during the Committee stage, the Bill has been considerably amended and improved.
The first purpose of the Bill is to provide financial assistance for the industry over the next ten years. Basically, the Bill stems from the recommendations of the Fleck Committee. It is an enabling Measure in that although a broad framework is laid down in which the Government will act, detailed schemes for subsidies or grants and loans will be made in Orders under the Bill. The first of these Orders will be presented for the approval of the House when the Bill is on the Statute Book. I believe that these financial arrangements have the approval, in principle, of hon. Members on both sides of the House and they have been discussed and agreed with the various sections of the fishing industry concerned.
To strengthen the economic position of the industry during the coming years, so that it may be capable of operating efficiently and profitably with less dependence on subsidies, the Government will help, through more basic research and experimental work, to find new fishing grounds and better ways of fishing. New and improved types of fishing boats and equipment will be developed and the Bill provides the means for doing this. It implements the conclusions of the Government on a number of other recommendations contained in the Fleck Committee's Report, particularly regarding the control of disease in shellfish beds and the strengthening of the powers of the White Fish Authority. Here again, discussions have shown that there is, in principle, wide agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the policy embodied in these provisions.
I wish to say two things about Clauses 10 to 14. Besides giving the Government power to control salmon drift netting—about which I will say more in a moment—they extend the existing powers to regulate fishing in the interests of conservation. Adequate conservation measures are of first importance for the long term interests of fishermen of all


countries. Largely on the initiative of the United Kingdom—we have an excellent record in this respect over a long period—the present conservation conventions on both sides of the Atlantic have been framed. It was mainly due to our efforts that the new North-East Atlantic Convention of 1959 was agreed upon.
I know that some hon. Members feel that progress has been too slow and I agree that we should have been pleased had it been possible to do more. But as it requires the unanimous agreement of fourteen different nations which have to carry their own industries along in the steps taken towards more effective conservation, it is inevitable that this process takes some time. Despite these difficulties, I think that we have made good progress and it looks as though the 1959 Convention will be replacing the 1946 Convention in the autumn of this year.
All but three of the fourteen signatory nations have ratified the Convention and of the three which are outstanding we expect one ratification in the next few weeks and the other two to follow in the summer. All being well, the new Convention should come into being in the autumn of this year and bring with it the possibility of applying the increased powers provided in the Convention. In addition, we shall do all we can in the international conservation conventions to strengthen the regulatory provisions and the ability to enforce them. I believe that with the original powers, as modified by the Clauses in the Bill, we are putting ourselves in the best position to tackle this problem by international agreement in future.
The next thing I wish to say on these Clauses 10 to 14 is that the subject of drift netting for salmon inevitably arouses strong feelings and it is possible to argue with considerable force both for and against it, as our debates have shown since Second Reading of the Bill. On the other hand, there is general agreement that it would be a tragedy if, for lack of precautionary measures, salmon stocks, which are of great value to this country were to be damaged. Most people would also agree that it is only fair that the interests of those who have traditionally fished for salmon,

whether by rod on the rivers or by net in the estuaries, should be reasonably protected.
We must remember that drift netting for salmon on the high seas started only in recent years, but has grown very rapidly, and in the summer of last year spread to many areas beyond the Tweed. The Bill gives Ministers power to deal with the problem of drift netting for salmon in two different ways. They can either prohibit it altogether in certain areas of the sea, or alternatively, they can license it in order to control the extent to which it is carried on. In either case they can support any measure of prohibition or licensing by controlling the landing of salmon caught by driftnet. The Secretary of State for Scotland has appointed a committee which, among other things, will be considering this general problem and recommending what measures of control are necessary and desirable.
The committee has been asked to report on this particular aspect of its terms of reference as soon as possible. It is too early yet to tell how long its deliberations will take. Meanwhile, as has been already stated in Standing Committee—and there was considerable debate on Report about it—we are aiming at 15th September as the date when Orders under the Bill will come into effect. The Secretary of State has said that, subject to any views that he may have received from the committee, he intends to make an Order prohibiting drift netting for salmon off the coasts of Scotland and the mouth of the Tweed.
In England and Wales there has been for a long time now traditional salmon fishing inside territorial waters controlled through licences from river boards. With this traditional fishing I would not intend to interfere. I cannot yet say what the Orders will contain, but, in general, what is in my mind is that they should be framed in such a way as to ensure that salmon off the English and Welsh coasts shall not be menaced as in recent years they have been off the Scottish coasts. Since one of the changes we have made in the Bill on Report has been to require an affirmative Resolution for Orders of this kind, the House will have opportunity to debate the desirability or otherwise


of any proposed measure when an Order comes before the House.
In general, I believe that the Bill will considerably strengthen our fisheries legislation and provide a firm basis on which the industry can plan for the future. I believe that it is something which the fishing industry itself welcomes and I confidently recommend the Bill to the House.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: We now come to the end of the rather protracted proceedings on the Bill. I think that we should have made very much greater progress. I do not want to go over all that has been said on Second Reading, or in Committee, but I must repeat that what we are dealing with here is two Bills, one dealing with the white fish industry and the other with salmon fisheries. This has meant that the debates have been a little longer than was expected. Responsibility for that must lie with the Government, because they injected into the Bill something which has nothing to do with the white fish industry. That is the sole reason why the committee took much longer than was expected and why we have had such a long Report stage.
In his Third Reading speech the Minister said that the Government have set up a committee to consider the question of drift-net fishing and what measures of control might be necessary. That is just what the committee has been set up to find out. Neither the Minister nor anyone else has the right to say that this menace is taking place. That is not much use—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Sea Fish Industry Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Soames.]

Orders of the Day — SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Hoy: What is resented by the people of Scotland, by the drift-net fishermen, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, is that apparently

people come to judgment without any inquiry. They resent the frequent ill-usage of our language in suggesting that they are guilty before their trial has taken place. We must get rid of that outlook if the committee which has been appointed by the Secretary of State is to inquire into the matter without prejudice.
The Bill is a little unusual in another respect, which, I am sure, the House will have noticed. This is the first Bill that we have had for a long time that the Government have got without a Guillotine. This must be proof that there was great co-operation upstairs in getting the Bill through. The Minister will agree that, while it may have been discussed sometimes at length, it is as a result of that discussion that we have the Bill as it now is.
I question very much whether the Bill will strengthen the fishing industry in the way that the Minister has suggested. There is no doubt that it will be helpful, but I said on Second Reading that I doubted whether at the end of ten years the industry would be able to stand on its own feet. All the signs are that the middle water fleet is undergoing an extremely difficult time. If my information is correct, not only the Scottish middle water fleet, but the English fleet, is making considerable losses amounting to many thousands of pounds.
We shall look forward to the result of the joint meetings to be held, I understand, with the Scottish Office on Friday first, when the middle water fleet owners of Granton, Newhaven and Aberdeen meet the Scottish Office to discuss the problem. In the following week, the middle water fleet is meeting the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss its problems. Perhaps, therefore, events already have outrun what we are doing under the Bill. It would be a great blow if any considerable section of the middle water fleet was lost to us. We will look with great interest on the outcome of those meetings to see whether anything can be done to aid this section of our fishing fleet.
I agree with the Minister that one of the answers is conservation. We simply cannot take out of the sea what is not in it. If over-fishing continues for ever, there will be the inevitable result that it makes for greater difficulty, catches are


impossible and people cannot earn their livelihood. That is why, when we complain, we do so in no carping spirit.
The Minister tells us tonight, however, that it is hoped that the 1959 Convention will be ratified this year—1962—and that three countries still have not ratified it. This appalling slowness in dealing with problems of this kind frightens us. We only wish that not only Britain, but every country interested in the Convention, would realise the urgency and importance of conservation, not only to themselves, but to the whole of Europe.
I hope that once the Convention is ratified, it will be found possible to carry out its provisions, because the complaint has been made on many occasions by our fishermen, and I am sure that it is repeated in other countries, that certain signatories to the Convention, or fishermen of certain countries, do not implement agreements and frequently fish unfairly with a mesh that is forbidden to them under the conventions. If we are to have conventions, we must also take powers to ensure that their provisions are carried out. It is important from all points of view that this should be done.
We have one small regret in connection with the Bill. Provision has been made to aid and sustain the whole of the white fish industry, but we regret that the Minister did not find it possible to make that small sum available for those interested in the shellfish industry. This would have involved, perhaps, an expenditure of £50,000. This was the maximum at which it could be put. We did not ask the Minister to bind himself to spending that sum. We asked him merely to take power to do it if it were found to be necessary.
The Minister disappointed the whole House by not accepting our small Amendment. We tabled it in Committee, but, unfortunately, by one of those little quirks of our procedural arrangements the Amendment was not in order. I am certain that if it had been discussed in Committee we should have defeated the Government. Indeed, if those hon. Members who voted against the Amendment had been in the House to listen to the arguments, we should have won here. It is a matter of regret that the small but important industry did not have this sustenance. I regret it

and I am certain that almost the whole House does.
I want to say a few words on drift netting. We look forward to the report of the Committee which has been set up. We are grateful to the Minister for providing for it to be dealt with by affirmative Resolution so that we shall be able to discuss whatever he places before the House.
Certain parts of the industry have gone through a very difficult time. I do not think that the distant water fleet has experienced the same difficulties as other sections, such as the middle, inshore and near shore fleets. I hope that the Bill will help them to get over their difficulties. The people engaged in the industry, whether they are owners or employees, have made a great contribution to our national life and our food supply. I can only hope that as a result of this Measure they will continue to do so.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I want to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) in his plea to the Government on the subject of shell fishing. Before doing that, however, I want to reinforce what he said about conservation. I agree that it seems to take a very long time for people to ratify agreements. It seems to be one of our national characteristics that we place impositions upon our own people whilst allowing others to get away with it.
There is, for instance, the question of the fishery limits. In my area Frenchmen come in and catch lobsters, even berried lobsters. Our own fishermen suffer as a result. There is also the question of the size of mesh. We shall not get any answer to this question until there is proper policing and adequate fines are imposed on those who contravene the regulations.
The case that I want to make now, and which I would have made in Committee had I not been prevented from doing so by an unfortunate accident, is one that I have made for seven years or more. I am told now that in Ministerial consultations the argument that this is a luxury fish has been given up—we have spoken year after year about the enormous imports of Russian tinned crab—but I would impress on my right


hon. Friend that, somewhere, someone has the figures wrong, and that if he thinks that the average fisherman, especially in my part of the country, is doing well, his information is quite wrong.
Many of these men are not making a great deal of money, but are faced with exactly the same costs as are those who are catching white fish, for they get a subsidy. I will not weary the House with the case of which I have spoken again and again, of men getting the subsidy for catching sole, turbot, plaice, and so on, while these other fishermen are denied it.
As many of us know perfectly well, it is very easy to make out a case about the big companies, and groups like the Ross Group, being assisted. We know perfectly well that those companies are probably making their profits on other sections of the business. But let any hon. Member try to persuade a shell fisherman in my area that he is not entitled to a subsidy and he will be told by that man, who sees the advertising of firms like the Ross Group and the enormous extent of such businesses, "Those men get the subsidy, and I don't." That is something—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but on Third Reading he may only discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. Howard: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps I dwelt too long on what is not in the Bill, but ought to be.
Be that as it may, I hope that my right hon. Friend—and I have written to him on this subject—will continue to consider these people, because they are an integral part of the fishing industry. They are essential if we are to keep the industry going, which, I believe, is the Bill's sole purpose. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter in the future, and will not take a doctrinaire view about these unfortunate men who are excluded at this time.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Jeger: I should like, first, to welcome back the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), and to say how much we missed him during the sittings of the Committee. As he says,

he was for much of the time prevented from being with us because of his unfortunate accident. Otherwise, I am sure that his influence and eloquence would have done something for those about whom he has spoken today, who are excluded from the Bill and whose position we cannot discuss.
This Third Reading must bring a certain gladness to the heart of the Minister, who probably feels that he will be relieved for at least another nine years from discussing sea fishing. In nine years' time we shall probably once again have to discuss the industry and, perhaps, hear arguments as to why the subsidy should be extended still further. Whether or not that is so, I am sure that he and those Ministers who, more than he, have been responsible for piloting the Bill through the Committee, must heave a sigh of relief as the last few speeches are made on this subject.
I should like to pay a tribute to the care with which the Ministers have answered our questions to the best of their ability, and to the sympathetic consideration they gave to some questions. Unfortunately, we did not get all we asked for, but we were pleased that in many cases our Amendments were accepted and that our views were listened to and given what I would call sympathetic consideration. I think that that points to the fact that, although protracted, our debates in Standing Committee were not unduly long, although they took a long time, and that they were not protracted purposely.
I would make one correction of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who, at one point in the Standing, Committee, kept on referring to the T.U.C. putting forward suggestions and recommendations to the Fleck Committee. For correction and just for the record, I would point out that the T.U.C. did not put forward any suggestions or evidence. The recommendations and the evidence in all the cases referred to were put forward by the T. & G.W.U.—the Transport and General Workers' Union—and not the T.U.C.
Having got that on the record, let me say that the recommendations which were made, good though they were, were not entirely accepted, and we heard today once again the point of view of


the Minister with regard to welfare and decasualisation and registration. It is a pity that, running right throughout the whole of the debates, we have had the principle enunciated on the Government side that all organisation of that kind must be left to the individual ports and should not be a national concern.
We have put up the argument that the procedure at the individual ports would be vastly different, the local customs would be different, if this were a national concern. While we agree that many of the small fishing ports would not require to have the welfare organisation which the larger ones require, individual consideration should be given to them, but it should be on a national plan and not on an individual scheme for each individual port.
The Government accepted our Amendment to increase the number of members of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, and we were very pleased about that. The Fleck Committee, to which we turn on all these questions, refers to the fact that although the Board is not without its supporters, the Committee met with
many complaints of its dictatorial manner and its failure to cultivate good public relations and engage in adequate consultation with the industry.
In the discussions we had in Standing Committee about this we made the point, and it was accepted by the Government, that many of the eminent and capable gentlemen on the authorities could not really give the time necessary to the cultivation of good relations between the authorities and the trade unions and the other parties in the industry. I hope that, as a result of the Amendments which have been accepted and the decision to increase, if necessary, the number of the members of the Board and to reallocate their duties, it may be that in future there will be an expert on labour relations appointed to each of the authorities so that they may deal in a far better way than hitherto with the trade unions concerned.
There has been, unfortunately, some dispute with the National Association of Clerical and Supervisory Staffs, which has been trying to speak and negotiate for and organise the executive grades of the staffs in the employ of the White Fish Authority. The White Fish

Authority, unfortunately, has refused to accept the assistance of the National Association of Clerical and Supervisory Staffs as representing the executive grades of workers employed by the Authority. I hope that as a result of the enlarging of the membership of the Authority there will be a better outlook in future towards trade union representation and negotiation over salaries, and so on. This would be following the lines of other Government and quasi-Government Departments and would be a great improvement.
I turn to one other matter which caused us a certain amount of concern, and still does, and that is Clause 16, dealing with increases of penalties in respect of foreign sea fishing boats. We had considerable discussion about this in Committee and we did not receive a satisfactory answer to why the fines have to be increased from £100 to £250 for a first offence and from £200 to £500 for subsequent offences. We pointed out, as a result of information supplied to us by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that these maxima have not yet been reached in any of the court cases in recent years. The hon. Gentleman told us in column 607 of the Standing Committee Report that in recent cases fines had ranged from £25 to £50. It seemed to us rather pointless to increase the fines When the present maxima had not yet been imposed.
How could the larger fines be reckoned to be a deterrent if the smaller fines had not yet been imposed? It seemed that the Government had given far too little consideration to this point. We pointed out, also, that in other places where British fishermen are arrested the fines imposed on them are far in excess of those which even now are suggested by the Government in this Bill.
The Trawling Times, in its April issue, reports how the "Wyre Mariner", Fleetwood's biggest trawler, commanded by Skipper Percy Bedford, was detained and the skipper fined £1,670. His gear and catch worth £625 were confiscated. He has given notice of appeal to the Icelandic Supreme Court. That was the extent of the fine imposed on a British skipper found in Icelandic waters.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I would not have minded these fines being even higher than they are now.

Mr. Jeger: That is precisely what I am saying.
The fines in the Bill bear no relation either to fines imposed in Britain in the past or to fines imposed on British fishermen caught fishing in foreign waters, and we have had no answer from the Government about the basis on which the fines in Clause 16 have been calculated. They should bear some relation either to fines imposed in the past or to fines imposed on our men caught doing the same sort of thing. The Government should give some indication how they arrive at figures of £250 and £500.
I should like to mention something else which has happened quite recently and which has given us cause for serious thought. This is the plea issued in the last day or two by the Yorkshire coast resorts' chambers of trade, protesting about foreign trawlers in British coastal waters which are fouling gear and riding their trawlers across lines, which, by normal sea practice, is forbidden and is regarded as an absolutely wrong thing to do, and then landing their catches in the smaller British ports to the detriment of our small inshore fishing industry.
I raised this matter a little while ago, at the request of a group of Yorkshire inshore fishermen. I was informed by the Minister that it was under review, that the Government were watching it, and that they would see what could be done. Apparently nothing has been done and the livelihood of the inshore fishermen off the coast of Yorkshire is being threatened by the continuation of this action.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: It is not only Yorkshire.

Mr. Jeger: The local newspaper says: Stop vandalism by foreign trawlers",
and is also asking for a six-mile fishing limit.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) says that this does not happen only in Yorkshire. I speak only of Yorkshire, because it is the only area about which I can speak from my own knowledge. No doubt my hon. Friend will say something about this from his own knowledge in due course if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.
When we are calling for the conservation of our fishing grounds, how far is the Minister prepared to go in safeguarding the fishing grounds which are inshore and represent the livelihood of the men going out from the smaller ports? This calls for urgent action.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line of argument too far. It seems that he is asking for something outside the Bill. We are now concerned with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Jeger: I was about to leave that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I submit that it comes within the area of the conservation of fish, not so much in distant waters but in near waters, and the preservation of the industry for our smaller ports which at present are being attacked by foreign trawlers which are coming too near our shores and taking the livelihood away from our smaller fishermen.
The action which is to be taken by the Government under the Bill depends really upon the spirit in which the Government approach the task. If the Government are to say, as they said recently when we were discussing a new Clause, that it must be left to the industry itself to put its house in order, I do not think that the Bill, apart from the dispersal of the subsidies, will do much for the industry. If, on the other hand, we have been given by the Bill an indication that the Government will ensure that our fishing industry is reorganised and revitalised, then the industry can have a great future. It can bring our people good food, and can organise its marketing and distribution and handling in such a way that there will be an improvement beyond anything that we have had in the past.
I can assure the Minister that hon. Members in this House who are interested in the matter, and the men whose livelihood depends upon this industry, while praying and working hard to make the industry viable, will see that the Government play their proper part.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The hours which the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) and I devoted to the Bill during the Committee stage were considerable. I regret that I misunderstood


what the hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to say a little earlier. I thought that he was arguing that it was unnecessary to raise the penalties in Clause 16 because so far the courts have imposed smaller figures than those prescribed. I am very sorry that I misunderstood him, and I very much share his feelings. It would certainly not worry me if the fines were made even higher.
I think that, altogether, the Bill will help the fishing industry. It will certainly help a part of it very considerably, it does not really apply as much to the inshore fishing industry as to other parts of the fishing industry. I think that hon. Members have regretted that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) was unable to join us during the Committee stage. I am certain that he would have been extremely helpful and might have enabled us to succeed on one point on which we failed.
I should like to mention—I am sure that this applies to hon. Members opposite as well—that the extreme patience and courtesy that we had from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-

Secretary of State for Scotland was something which I shall remember all the time that I am in this House. It was regrettable that, when certain right hon. and hon. Members felt so deeply and sincerely that they wanted to give the Minister more power, because they trusted him—that is to say, the Minister of Agriculture—he refused even a permissive Clause giving him this power. It might be that in that way the Bill might have helped the inshore industry more.
You will have noted, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, references to such places as the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland. These places lie at some distance from our coast. Distance from our sea shore is a matter of concern to our fishing industry. Many of us feel that, if the Minister could see fit to extend the limit to six miles, it would benefit the fishing industry as a whole, especially in the areas of which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives spoke. I share his view about what is going on in those areas and about how protection should be given to the inshore fishing industry.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Listening to the regrets, expressed by so many hon. Members on both sides, that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) was deprived of the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee during part of the Committee stage, I am a little mystified by just what he missed. Members of that Committee seem to have had a really good time and those who, like myself, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and others who were not fortunate enough to be selected to serve on the Committee, suspect that those who did serve took all the guts, as it were, out of the discussion before it came here for Report and Third Reading.
Like every other Scotsman, I feel rather frustrated now, not having been on the Committee, by having to narrow myself wholly to what is in the Bill. I always remember the evidence given to the Neven-Spence Committee some years ago by a Shetland fisherman. He said that he had brought up his family and his brother's—two families—"on the point of a hook." That was a fine and practical, if picturesque, expression. I suspect that the Standing Committee went alike wide of the hook and almost followed the tradition of the mediaeval schoolmen in reckoning, if not how many angels, at least how many haddocks they could place on the point of a hook. I wonder if the Committee had discussion on whether "spat" was a verb or a noun. I regret that some of us at least did not have the opportunity of taking part in that happy Committee.
The Bill will not give us anything like a long-term settled policy for the industry. I do not think for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) was anything but facetious when he said we would not have any more legislation on this industry for another ten years. I am sure he has not accepted the Government's assurance that this Measure will last for ten years. I can see legislation coming quite soon to amend this Bill. I will not say much more about it than that. As soon as the question of the six-mile limit, which has been referred to several times in this debate, comes up seriously for practical decision—perhaps it may be a twelve-mile limit—we shall have

further legislation which will affect this Bill. That will happen soon after the Measure becomes law. Again, there are all the possibilities of what will happen if we enter the Common Market. New legislation in that event would certainly play havoc with this Bill and with much of the Government's policy as expressed in it.
With the hon. Member for St. Ives and almost every other hon. Member who took part in trying to persuade the Government on the point, I regret that something at least has not been done for lobster fishermen within the global sum provided by the Bill. It seems that as soon as lobsters were mentioned the Minister himself grew a shell around his heart. He showed no sign of yielding or even taking permissive power to help, which was all that was asked of him. The local lobster men will simply say that the big fellows are getting the subsidies and assistance while they are getting nothing.

Mr. D. Marshall: I am certain that when the hon. Gentleman mentioned lobsters he also included crabs.

Mr. MacMillan: Yes, certainly. I am sure "lobsters" embrace sprats.

Mr. D. Marshall: I said crabs.

Mr. MacMillan: Yes, I include crabs. I shall not be drawn underwater by the hon. Member on that point.
All hon. Members have been united in approving the general purpose of conservation. For many years, my party has urged upon Parliament the importance of the conservation of fish stocks and the curbing of the boundless greed of the commercial interests which for years have forced the depletion of stocks in the North Sea, the middle waters and even certain areas in the distant waters. More and more we are seeing the results of the resentment of that by other countries and seeing it expressed in the extension of the limits by one country after another—and it is coming to this country, too. To the limited extent that it serves the purpose of conservation, however, I am sure that the Bill has the support of all hon. Members.
Unfortunately, on the "Salmon Bill section", as someone called it, of this


double Bill, while we all agree with the Government's purpose in seeking to conserve salmon stocks and to make sure that they are not ruinously depleted, we all still have strong reservations when we come ashore and come hard up against the syndicates and the private interests whose only concern is that the salmon should be conserved for them.
When this policy of conservation is expressed in commercial terms, as it is in places like the Western Isles and the Highlands generally, one finds that as soon as one makes a speech in the House about a fishery area, one receives a protesting letter from some remote representative of a syndicate in London, and one then begins to ask whether the purpose of this part of the Bill is to preserve salmon stocks or merely to preserve the status quo and the private monopoly in this kind of fishing. I should like to see the conservation provisions administered in such a way that the true public interest would be served at all times, so that it was not only the purely commercial and private interests which were in the minds of the Minister and those administering the Bill.
I very much regret that the reaction of small fishermen, the reaction of the local angler and the reaction of the man born and bred alongside the salmon rivers and the trout waters to the claim that this is a conservation Measure will simply be to say, "Conservation, yes; but for whom?". The Bill will not in any way extend access to the waters to the ordinary person even with rod and line. It is merely conserving in terms of an appeal to the broad national interest what is in fact a private monopoly which is very greatly resented, buttressed as it is by the legislation of a century or more for a small number of individuals at one time concerned mainly with sport and now concerned mainly with profit. I should like the salmon and trout syndicates and the individual landlords to be compelled to take more serious steps to conserve the inland freshwater fisheries in general as well as the Government taking measures to conserve the salmon and the trout at sea.
Discussing this part of the Bill, we are reminded of the savage penalties already in operation for the taking of a salmon

by two or more people. An earlier Act provides that where two or more people take a salmon they can be fined up to £500 or be imprisoned for two years or both—for taking one salmon. At best, the two people concerned probably get only half the salmon each anyway. It is a savage penalty, and when one contrasts that with the inadequacy of the penalties proposed in the Bill against the powerful interests which come into the bays of the Hebrides and deplete the bays of fish and deprive whole communities of their livelihood, one must come to the conclusion that the Government are far more concerned with the private salmon syndicates and commercial interests than with the conservation of fishing stocks on which the livelihood of the inshore fishermen and communities depend.
Conservation has to be supported, but there is a powerful lobby in the background behind this word "conservation" of which from many years' experience we have learnt to be highly suspicious, and not without reason, because as soon as there is any interference, for however high and important a public purpose, with the salmon and trout interests, which are at one with the salmon and trout interests carried to the high seas, there are immense claims for compensation. If an attempt is made to develop a hydro-electric scheme, or to develop a hitherto under-developed area in the Highlands, the landlords leap out of the bogs and woods to claim their whack in the name of compensation for the salmon fisheries. Only they do not call it that. They call it compensation for the disturbance of the salmon and the damage to their policy of conservation. What they are conserving, of course, are their rights to continue taking profits. If anyone tries to develop something in the public interest, the nation has to pay for upsetting their policy of conserving their profits and interests.
How different it is when it comes to the Government under this Bill taking action to deal with the depredations of trawlers, whether British or foreign. And the effect is the same on the inshore fishermen within the territorial limits. How different is the policy there. When they could take effective action, they merely raise the maximum fine. I agree with my hon. Friend who asked what


was the purpose of doing this. If we had a high minimum fine, we might get somewhere. If we had, as in the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, penalties for two or more people acting in concert, which there must always be in the case of any vessel poaching inside inshore fishery limits, we might get somewhere. Merely to raise the maximum fine is not likely to effect any great improvement.
Three years ago I had some correspondence on this point with the Prime Minister. He was as critical as a Prime Minister is likely to be of the fact that the courts were not imposing anything like the present maximum fines. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is puzzling to see why some measures are not being taken to ensure that adequate fines are imposed, along with other penalties which sometimes could be more effective than fines, such as the detention of the vessel, the suspension if necessary of the skipper's ticket, and the appearance in court of the owners of the vessel, which is one of the things from which they escape far too easily.
I am concerned about the operation of the Bill in relation to the inshore fishermen, because we have seen not only the depletion of fishing stocks, not only the depredations of the trawlers adding to that depletion since before the war, but the startling and dramatic depletion in the number of crofter-inshore fishermen in Scotland alone from over 4,000 in 1938 to about 1,200 or 1,300 in 1962—and I think that that is overstating the present figure. If we fail to provide adequate protection, we lose our inshore fishermen and we depopulate those areas on which we depend for our supplies of inshore fish—which of course is the best quality fish that we can get—and our supplies of lobsters, crabs, and so on.
Even under the Government's own Minch fishery scheme—an excellent scheme, apart from the fact that they charge an interest rate of from 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. to ordinary fishermen, which is utterly usurious—fishermen have to find a large amount of money of their own in respect of these vessels, in addition to money for their gear, maintenance and operation, insurance, and all the rest. It is extremely frustrating for them to have to tolerate under

their very noses, day and night, the sight of fleets of predators and poachers from all around—not only from their own coasts but from Brittany, West Germany, France, Belgium and all over the place, and also to find that the Government's Fishery Protection Service and penalties are not adequate to give them reasonable protection.
I am not saying that anybody in the Fishery Protection Service is to blame for this; every fisherman will pay the highest tribute to the men in that Service. They are even prepared to pay tribute to the good intentions of the Minister. But it is ultimately in the hands of the Minister to ensure that the Service is adequate to conserve and preserve the inshore fisheries.
I am glad that Yorkshire has now come into this argument. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Goole that if he wrote some weeks or months ago, I wrote about this many years ago. I have kept writing throughout these years. But I get the same answer, wrapped up in fine slabs of marine biology, with all sorts of reasons why scientists cannot accept the view of our fishermen on the question why no fish have come into the bay in the last few months. The fishermen are concerned with only two facts—first, that trawlers have been there and, secondly, that the fish have gone, and that the two things have happened at the same time. This cannot always be a coincidence. Nothing will be done to sort out that situation merely by raising the fines under the Bill though I approve of that also. It can be done only by doing what the Minister said Should be done about the landing of salmon caught by drift netting.
It does not require any further legislation than is provided by the Bill. That is to say, we can place an overall seasonal limit on the landing of fish in certain areas by any method other than line fishing. That would possibly not require much more than local byelaws, for which permissive legislation to some extent may already exist. It is claimed that, since the last century, powers to close certain areas have existed. If a limit were imposed upon overall landings during a certain season in a given area, apart from fish caught by line fishermen, we could do quite a bit more


to discourage the excessive catching and landing of fish by poaching vessels and mass trawling methods.
The problem will not be solved by one Bill, or by half a dozen, or even more Bills. We are all aware of the fact that the problems of inshore fishermen are not concerned only with his fishing at sea; they are related to his whole economic and social background, and to the amenities which his village enjoys, or does not enjoy. Depopulation is not only a matter of fishing; many fishermen are also crofters. Many of them have other sorts of second jobs, and could not exist without them. Equally, many of them could not exist as crofters without also having fishing boats. The one thing goes with the other.
There are many ways in which our fishermen wild be affected once—if ever—the question of our entry into the European Economic Community is settled.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue that line, because it would get far outside what is within the Bill.

Mr. MacMillan: It is the question of national limits on which I am dwelling for one second, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. The Bill deals, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with subsidies to be paid to the fleets. Surely, these things might be affected by entry to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member and the House know the rule that on Third Reading what is within the Bill may be discussed. If, indeed, the Common Market is within the Bill, the Common Market may be discussed. I was not aware that it was.

Mr. MacMillan: I was not suggesting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Common Market was within the Bill. I am anxious about what may happen to the Bill once we are within the Common Market. My concern is the difficulty which will confront those administering the Bill, only a few months, possibly, from now. I agree that that may be hypothetical and I will not pursue the point in detail. Nevertheless, it is a practical point that will arise in, possibly, a few months' time and will affect

every fisherman around our coasts, from the inshore fishermen to the fleets which have to go to the distant waters. The question of the six- or twelve-mile limits and all the rest will be closely bound up with the decision to enter the E.E.C. or our failure to enter it, or, should I say, success in not entering it.
I have a final, purely administrative question to the Minister on protection. I should like to know whether under the Bill it is intended to test, and whether the Minister can test, the validity of the Charter granted on 2nd August, 1666, by King Charles II under which, at various times since 1667, fishermen from Bruges have exercised the privilege conferred upon them by the Charter to fish within British territorial waters on condition that they merely carried a safe conduct from their municipality of Bruges.
That might well be a question which ties itself closely with Brussels and the Common Market, although, perhaps, I should not mention that name again. The fact remains, however, that not only can foreign trawlers still pursue their activities, very often described as quite nefarious and predatory activities, at the expense of our fishermen in our own territorial waters. Here is a Charter, still in existence, which blatantly allows the fishermen of Bruges and that area to come and fish with our territorial waters. Will it be tested under the Bill when it becomes an Act? I hope that it may, because the consequences would be interesting and certainly would be worth discussion at Brussels, even if it would be out of order in this House.
I hope that now that the Minister has increased the fines, in the interests of the protection and the conservation—that blessed word—of the stocks of fish upon which our inshore fishermen in particular, the most helpless section of our fishing community, so much depend, he will put into full operation all the measures which it is within his power to put into operation to ensure that a continuous, preventive patrol, a pursuit and arrest service, with all the rigours of the law behind it, will do everything possible to preserve the interests of the people whom, even as lobster fishermen, the Minister has so far shown no desire, no inclination and certainly no practical


inclination in terms of any protection in the Bill, to help. I hope that that service will be stepped up in every possible way. It must be if the Government intend to conserve our inshore fishing and the people concerned in it.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Temple: I am sure that the whole House has enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), but he spread a good deal of alarm and despondency when he forecast another Sea Fish Industry Bill in the comparatively near future. This is my first experience of taking part in all stages of a Sea Fish Industry Bill and I assure the hon. Member, and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if another Sea Fish Industry Bill comes forward as soon as the hon. Member anticipates it will have to manage without me in Committee.
My interest throughout the Bill has been in the controversial Clauses concerned with the control of salmon net fishing. I want to give my right hon. Friend the Minister some up-to-date figures from the Clerk to the Fishmongers Company of the arrivals of drift-net caught salmon at Billingsgate. In the first three months of this year nearly 60 per cent. of the arrivals of salmon at Billingsgate Market were drift-net caught salmon.

Mr. Willis: How many were there?

Mr. Temple: I said 60 per cent. of the salmon which arrived at Billingsgate.

Mr. Willis: Sixty per cent. of what?

Mr. Temple: I did not want to take up the time of the House with detailed figures, but as the hon. Member wants the exact figures I will give them to him. Out of 2,512 boxes of salmon which arrived in the first three months of this year, 1,474 boxes were drift-net caught salmon. This compares with no drift-net caught salmon arriving at Billingsgate in 1960. My point is that drift-netting is a very serious menace indeed.
The whole effectiveness of this Bill will be in the Orders which my right hon. Friends will make. I have had an assurance from my right hon. Friends

that consultations will take place about the contents of the Orders. I would not consider a telephone call from somebody in my right hon. Friend's Department to the Secretary of the Salmon and Trout Association to be a consultation. I hope that detailed consultations will take place on the content of the Orders.
There is no doubt that the position which has arisen in Scotland is very serious. However, we must consider England and Wales, also. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think, just because there has not been any damage in England and Wales, that similar action should not be taken in respect of England and Wales. My right hon. Friend indicated this evening that the existing interests would not be menaced. I hope this means that prohibition Orders will be introduced in respect of England and Wales, at least until such time as the Hunter Committee has had an opportunity to produce its final report.

Mr. Willis: The Hunter Committee is in respect of Scotland.

Mr. Temple: I appreciate that, but the Hunter Committee may give us some indication of the action necessary in respect of the whole of the United Kingdom. The Hunter Committee is the first committee to consider this question since drift-netting has been taking place. The Bledisloe Committee, which considered the matter in respect of England and Wales, did so at a time when no drift netting was taking place. I there for hope that the Orders will be for a total prohibition and that they will be effective in protecting the interests of the established fishermen, both rod and net, of the tourist and hotel industry, because the tourist industry is vitally affected in Scotland and the remoter parts of England and Wales, and also of the rural population in those remote parts.
I readily recognise that it has not been possible to legislate in the Bill for the total control of foreign fishermen outside territorial waters. Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned the fact that territorial limits may well be extended. I believe that this may well be so, in which case this legislation will be all the more effective.
I have said that the Orders will be all-important, and I forecast that they will be detailed and complicated. I trust that they will not be introduced en bloc. I hope that we shall have plenty of time to discuss and examine them. At the end of a Session there is always a rush to get the business through, but I very much hope that the Orders will be brought forward in plenty of time for the House to study them thoroughly.
The Bill has had a relatively slow passage through this House, but I hope very much that it will have a speedy passage through another place and that its various provisions will be effective in controlling this new form of drift netting and also effective in preserving our stocks of fish, both white fish and salmon.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Crosland: Two particularly quaint remarks have been made in this Third Reading debate. The first was made by the Minister, who said that drift netting of salmon evokes very strong feelings. Without offence to my Scottish hon. Friends, and speaking for myself and for other English colleagues, I know that the subject evokes in me a profound boredom which, as the Bill has gone on, has turned almost to a profound nausea. If I ever again hear a Scottish voice speaking on drift netting I fear I shall have to throw myself off the Westminster Bridge.
The other remark was made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), who said that he judged that we had had a very good time in Committee. That puts it slightly strongly. We were, of course, aided by a number of circumstances. We were aided by the Minister's almost total absence, since whenever he did appear, he lectured us for taking too long and so prolonged our proceedings by about four times more. We had great courtesy from the two junior Ministers; I sometimes wished that they had been slightly less courteous and rather more brief in their replies, but they were extremely courteous.
On this side, we had the leadership, at once—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: My hon. Friend refers to my comment on the obvious enjoyment of members of the Committee. I gathered that merely from the expressions of commiseration from his English colleagues on both sides with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) for being deprived, by an accident, from hearing the Scotsmen on that Committee.

Mr. Crosland: I must tell my hon. Friend that the actual attendance of the commiserators was amongst the worst of any on that Committee, and that is probably why they were able to speak commiseratingly.
I do not want to discuss drift netting, knowing nothing about it, but I should like to speak briefly on the primary purpose of the Bill, which is to provide long-term economic assistance to the major part of the industry. I very much hope that it will succeed in that purpose, but I find it harder now to take a view on the main approach of the Bill than I did when it was first introduced, because two separate things have hap-paned which pull me in two different directions.
One is that, as has already been mentioned, Sir Hugh Fraser has taken over the chairmanship of one of the largest groups, which has reported both high and rising profits fox the last year, so that it becomes increasingly clear that under efficient top management the larger integrated groups which incorporate merchanting and freezing, and so on, are perfectly able to make healthy overall profits even without the subsidy.
On the other hand—and this is what makes the picture confusing-for the North Sea and middle water fleets conditions have gone from bad to worse since the introduction of the Bill. The position in the North Sea and the Faroes has become so bad that the latest Ross Group trawler has been laid up since it was launched, because the group decided that conditions did not warrant its putting to sea and fishing. The situation around the Faroes is appalling, and the position of the small middle water firms is serious, and I hope that when the discussions take place between the Ministry and the B.T.F. in the next few weeks some answer will be found to the problems of the smaller firms in the industry.
It will be seen, therefore, that since the introduction of the Bill two contrary things have occurred that make it more difficult now than then to take a constructive view of whether this kind of financial assistance will be enough in the next ten years. But I am still certain that the principle of the Bill is right. That principle is to aid the industry, but to do so on the condition that it further modernises itself. That problem does not face only us. There was an article in The Times today about the fishing industry in Italy. The problem there is the same. The Italian Government want to give aid, but to give it solely on the condition that the industry modernises its techniques, and seeks new fishing grounds.
There is still a lot to be done in our own fishing industry. The Chairman of Bird's Eye pointed out a week ago that Britain's was almost the first fishing industry in the world to go into quick freezing but that, having pioneered it, it had been overtaken by a number of other countries. The proportion of our fleet able to freeze fish at sea is now probably lower than the proportion of the fleets of several other countries. So there is a great deal to be done in the way of further modernisation. The one test, in my view, of the Bill is whether the industry can use it to modernise itself and to develop new investment and new types of trawler which alone can ensure a modern industry.
I should like now to make one remark on a matter which has attracted a lot of attention this evening—the question of limits. I suppose that it is natural that so many people, no matter what their politics, whether of the Right or the Left, become so xenophobic when discussing the fishing industry of their own country. One can entirely share the feelings of a British fisherman who feels passionately when foreign trawlers come in and mess around in his waters. But one must remember that one finds the whole time exactly the same feelings being felt among fishermen of the Faroes or Iceland and among fishermen of all sorts of other nationalities, too.
It is natural enough, and it has gone on a long time and will go on as long as we have national fleets, but it makes me feel always how desirable it is, as was suggested a year or two ago, that

in Western Europe at least there should be an international convention under which there would be no limits of any kind and no tariffs or quotas of any kind. This might avoid the complaints which we make against others and which Icelanders, the Faroese and other fishermen are making against ourselves, and which at once express and encourage a natural but acute form of xenophobia.
There is just one other point I should like to make. I hope that the Minister's decision, which I am sure is right, to send this three-man team round the fishing ports means that he and his Ministry are to give a lot more positive leadership to the fishing industry than they have done in the past. I have very strongly the sense that an industry such as this which is subsidised by the Government and constantly getting into the Government's hair and coming to the Government for help has not had that degree of firm leadership from the Government in the past that it might have had.
I hope that this new interest, following on the Fleck Report, is a sign of a change. I think that all of us would take the view that there is a lot we should like to see changed and that there is room for improvement, certainly in labour relations and welfare. I think that the manning scales are probably wrong for the distant water trawlers and there are other spheres like that where changes might be made.
There is one point on which I would disagree with two or three of my hon. Friends who have talked about discussing another such Bill as this in ten years' time for another ten years after after that. Unless there are overwhelming social reasons for it, I do not think that a large permanent subsidy to the Whole industry can be justified. Subsidy can certainly be justified in the short term to enable the industry to set itself up and to modernise and to make itself viable, but if we were to have in ten years' time to consider a continuing subsidy for the whole industry, I would begin to have very grave doubts.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Hon. Members on both sides have said how sorry they have been that my non-Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr.


G. R. Howard) was deprived of the opportunity of sitting on the Committee on the Bill for the whole extent of its passage upstairs. No one regrets that more than I do because I took his place in the Committee. I share to the full the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), because whether or not shellfish was discussed in great detail it certainly would not be true to say it was discussed ad nauseam.
The hon. Member for Grimsby made an extremely sensible speech and one which put the Bill into the right perspective. I agree with him that the distant water fleet, which is the main part of the fleet, will be able to improve its position and to modernise over the next few years and do very well without any subsidy at all.
Some of the provisions of the Bill may be a good deal more generous to distant water fishing than will be required. If Associated Fisheries, in the Ross Group, can organise its business efficiently and make good profits now, there is little reason for giving it a subsidy. One of the original reasons for giving it a subsidy was that it lost the Icelandic grounds, but that does not seem to have had the effect on distant water fishing that at one time seemed likely. As a result of the Bill, distant water fishing stands every chance of being in very good shape in a shorter period than ten years.
Now we are faced with the problem of what to do about North Sea fishing which is near and middle water fishing. This is a different problem. These fisheries are for high quality fish, of higher quality than from distant water, landed and marketed fresh for the most part. These fishermen in recent months, and in the case of the Scottish fishery over the last twelve or eighteen months, have had a very thin time indeed. I am seriously worried whether, in the next ten years, we can put that part of the industry properly on its feet. We started doing this as long ago as 1951 with the first fishing Act, but since then we have not made the progress that we ought to have made by this time in getting the near and middle water fishing industry to stand on its own feet.
On the other hand, I disagree with the hon. Member for Grimsby in that I would certainly not discard the fleet

although it proved uneconomic. I admit that I have a constituency interest and, therefore, my views are coloured, but these fishermen will not cost us much money. They provide a firm foundation for us, in times of war and trouble, for the manning of our minesweepers and other naval craft. They also provide a very attractive part of British society which we should discard at our peril. I hope that in the next few years we shall be able to make them into a prosperous community, but I am worried about this and I do not think that after ten years the industry will be in a reasonable state.
During recent months we have been extremely worried about the growing weight of imports which have been landed at Grimsby in particular and also at Hull which have an enormous effect on the home fishing industry. The point is that the fishing industry is not able to provide for storing its fish as other industries can make provision when there are large imports. Although fish can be frozen it cannot be stored indefinitely. This has a marked effect on the economy of the fishing industry. I therefore do not think that it would be a good thing, on the one hand, to provide a subsidy to get the fishing industry properly organised if, on the other, we allowed other fishing industries to put fish on our markets When it suited them rather than us.
The Bill has been welcomed by the industry and, on the whole, by both sides of the House. If it results in an economic fishing industry it will also be a smaller industry. I hope that the White Fish Authority will exercise its pressures more strongly than it has done up to now. The Authority has been rather too generous in its scheme of grants and loans. I hope that it will be very firm about the new ships that it allows to come into the fleet so that in a few years we shall have fewer but more efficient ships producing fish at an economic price and providing the crews who do the work with a decent return for their labours.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I detected a measure of levity at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), but I believe that this is a very important Bill and that every member


of the Committee which considered it did his best.
I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and would tell the Minister that he has two very courteous and able juniors who have answered our points even though we have disagreed with them. I pay tribute to my own colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who spoke from the Front Bench and has continued the discussions here today. He has spoken from experience and from a desire to help the industry. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Goole (Mr. Jeger), Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), all of whom made distinctive contributions in Committee.
Although we have had prolonged discussions, we have, after all, been dealing with an important Bill. Apart from the controversial part about salmon, we on this side of the House approve of the Bill. I am not going to get involved in a Second Reading speech—I think that the Chair can look after that—but I have detected a tendency to lapse into a Second Reading debate. We are, after all, discussing the Bill as it is. I say only that I regret that the controversial part about salmon is in the Bill. I would rather have waited for an inquiry. However, that is history. The Bill is before us, and we are seeking to inject financial aid into an industry which needs it.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leith and Grimsby have mentioned some of the difficulties which now face the middle water fleet, the problems of the trawlers which fish in the North Sea and the Faroes, some of which are not now sailing. We hope that the Clauses dealing with subsidies will help the industry. We also expect that the industry will become a viable unit after ten years. We could be wrong. But the purpose of the Bill is good however much we may argue about subsidies and

their place in our economic life. So we support these Clauses and we are sorry that the powers relating to the shellfish industry have not gone as far as we would have wished.
I should be out of order if I discussed the new Clauses which we proposed, but they have been mentioned. Like the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall), I regret that one Clause in particular was not accepted. I recognise that the powers in the Bill affecting the inshore fishing industry are rather limited. I represent a constituency which has a very small inshore fishing industry. I am trying even now through correspondence with the Minister—he has kindly passed on correspondence to the Minister of Transport—to help our harbour structure in Maryport, which would, in turn, help our inshore fishermen, part time and whole time. It is a small industry, and we can see how it has faced difficulties throughout. It may well be that the Bill does not go far enough in that direction.
We have tried to improve the Bill. We have argued about marketing and distribution, also research. I could make another speech on that subject, though it would be very wrong of me to do so tonight. I may seem to be a fanatic about this, but if the industry is to be efficient I believe that this side of it has to be improved quickly. Research is important. There must be research not only in applied science, but also into the economic aspects. As we know, already much has been done at some of our fishing ports.
I promised to be brief to set an example to the Minister. I wish the Bill well. I regret the salmon controversy. I hope that the subsidies will work, that the "three wise men" will report favourably to the right hon. Gentleman, that he will act, and that he will do the things he has said he will do—improve marketing, distribution and welfare facilities for the workers in the industry.
We wish the Bill well and if, after ten years, the Minister or his successor has to come forward with another, we will look at that one. We have tried to improve the Bill, vigorously opposing those parts we dislike. We have made our contribution and we hope that the industry will prosper through this legislation.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Leburn: Perhaps appropriately on the first day back from a Parliamentary Recess, I feel rather as if I were coming to the eighteenth hole of a rather long and exacting course. I know well that on more than one occasion I put my partner in the rough and also—if the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) would like me to admit it—I three-putted on more than one occasion upstairs.
I thank hon. Members for the kind things they have said about my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and myself, and I would also like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the contributions they made, both today and in Committee, towards improving the Bill. I cannot, perhaps unfortunately, make the same comments about the Liberal Party, for I have noticed that it has made no contribution to our affairs this evening.
I agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) that this is a very important Bill which will have major consequences for the future of the fishing industry. We have given it long and exhaustive consideration. The debate today has been typical of the contributions we made during our meetings upstairs. I apologise to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) if at one stage in Committee I made a misleading statement about the T.U.C. I readily accept from him that it was the Transport and General Workers' Union. As one who was connected with the timber trade before I came to Parliament, I know very well all about tongues and grooves.
It is fair to say that there is general agreement on the greater part of the Bill. We have been able to improve it in detail as a result of our considerations in Committee and today, and for the most part its contents are acceptable to both sides of the House. Not unnaturally, there are some parts of it, particularly the Clauses dealing with salmon and trout, which are more controversial. In this debate the Government's proposals for drift netting have been attacked from two angles.
First, they have been criticised as being unfair to drift-net fishermen trying to earn their living while their tradi-

tional fisheries have been going through a thin time, and, secondly, as being too cautious and not going far or quickly enough to deal with what is considered to be the serious possibility of damage to one of our most valuable species and a very valuable Scottish asset. This seems to suggest to me that the road chosen by the Government is about right, and that view was reinforced by the discussion we had on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). At any rate, the Government are responsible for taking the decision here. It is a question, in a difficult and delicate matter, of getting the right judgment, and I think that we have done that.
I do not propose tonight to deal with the many points about shellfish, limits, or economic communities. I think that I was given a good lead by the hon. Member for Workington earlier. I will write to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) about his question about Bruges in the comparatively recent year of 1666.
The hon. Member for Goole referred to the increased penalties which our courts are to be able to inflict on foreign trawlers. While they do not approach the very large sums which some of our own vessels have had to pay as a result of being caught fishing in foreign waters, we must also bear in mind the difference in the sizes of the vessels concerned. The very large fines which our people have suffered were for fishing by large distant water trawlers with very considerable catching power.
If there were any vessels of this kind poaching in British waters, we might need to consider higher maximum penalties, but, in fact, the foreign vessels found in our waters are very much less formidable, mostly small trawlers and shellfish boats, and the scale of penalties provided is in keeping with their size and catching power. While we have increased the penalties, that may, although we have no jurisdiction over the courts, give some lead to the courts to impose somewhat more severe penalties.
Clearly, the principle of continuing financial assistance has been generally accepted and so are the particular measures by which we seek to do so. Stress has rightly been laid on the importance of a positive and constructive


approach to the industry's problems, the intensification of research and experiment directed towards placing the industry, long term, on a healthy and sound footing. The additional financial powers which we are taking, for instance, to give grants to the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board for research, processing, ice-making plant, and so forth, will all make a contribution to this end.
In the last analysis, however, we shall have to look to the industry's own efforts to assure its future, but by the proposals in the Bill we have demonstrated our will and determination to give all proper reasonable help and encouragement. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) spoke of the difficulties in which the middle water vessels are finding themselves at the moment. I do not think that I can develop that now, but there is no doubt that we will have to look very carefully at the position when the time comes.
If I do not single out any of the other parts of the Bill it is not because I do not consider them important. Of course, the measures proposed for shellfish, including those concerning the control of disease and the simplification of the procedures, are important, but I feel that we have got more or less general agreement on those matters.
I did intend to discuss the question of drift netting at further length, but the hon. Member for Grimsby has said that if he hears a Scottish voice on the subject again we might lose that international good will to which he referred in another connection. Therefore, all I should like to say is that we have taken powers to introduce these Orders. If and when we do, the House will have an opportunity to discuss them. The Hunter Committee has been set up and has been invited by my right hon. Friend to try to report urgently on this specific problem and he will take into account any recommendations which it may make.
I think that that is all that I need say and it is with confidence that I commend the Bill to the House for Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROADS (M.1 SAFETY MEASURES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Philip N. Hocking: I ought to make it clear at the beginning of my speech that I realise that the M.1 is one of the safest roads in the country today, and is, indeed, becoming safer as drivers become more experienced. But I do not think that that necessarily means that we can rule out any further measures to make the road safer still, because the better the highway becomes the higher its safety record.
Since I have been a Member of this House, during the last two years, I have had the opportunity to drive along the road on innumerable occasions. My home is at the far end from here, so I have been able to see at first hand, in almost every conceivable type of condition, exactly what happens on the highway. I have driven along it at almost every hour of the day and night in ice, fog, wind, and rain, and in fine weather, so I should like tonight to draw attention to some of the things which I think are necessary to make conditions better perhaps on this road, and, I hope, better on some of the other motorways being constructed.
I think that the worst condition for driving is that in which one meets heavy rain and there is a large amount of water lying on the flat surface of the road. Immediately one approaches another vehicle to pass it, spray is flung on to the windscreen and one is blinded by the tremendous amount of water thrown up. I realise that it is impossible immediately to do anything about this, but I hope that the Ministry will pay some attention to this problem, particularly when the question of resurfacing the highway comes up. It would then, I hope, be possible to give a slight fall to get the extra water away from the road. It might also be possible by some regulation or other to insist on flaps being put on the rear of motor vehicles to prevent that spray being thrown up.
At night, the most difficult problem is that of dazzle. I do not think that anyone who drives along the motorway at


night ever gets over the problem, except during the short time when travelling along the road between Luton and Dunstable, where the experimental strip of anti-dazzle screen has been erected. Whilst one can drive with comparative safety along that stretch of the road, over the rest of the highway it is only safe to drive with dipped headlights and not cause inconvenience to oncoming traffic.
But if a driver puts his headlights full on, when he approaches a bridge, or if a vehicle approaches him from behind one of the bridges—and there are 100 between the southern and northern ends of the highway—long shadows cast by the pillars of the bridge cause him considerable trouble and difficulty. There have been two fatal accidents—one as recently as six weeks ago—in which these shadows have been mentioned, and it seems that round the bridges dazzle is the most dangerous condition.
I have noticed that in the Questions that have been answered from time to time at Question Time it has been suggested that it is impossible, or that it is not necessary, to put an anti-dazzle screen down the whole length of the highway. I hope that attention will be paid in the near future to the possibility of providing some form of dazzle screen on either side of the approaches to bridges—perhaps for 100 yards or so. The screen could be made up in a number of ways. Expanded metal or something of that nature has been suggested as being most suitable. Another suggestion is the use of fast-growing rose bushes. I suggest that gorse might be used. It is a natural phenomenon in some parts of the country, and it would form a screen rapidly and help to prevent dazzle at the approaches to bridges.
Consideration might also be given to the erection of a permanent crash barrier between the separate highways. This would also act as a dazzle screen. Thirteen feet six inches is not a very wide expanse in which to correct a skid, and as it is now impossible to widen the central reservation I hope that some form of barrier will be put up between the two highways.
Some people have said that the road travels through a very difficult stretch of country, and have asked that indicator

boards should be erected to show people travelling along the road what conditions are prevailing further along. In reply to questions on this point, we have always been told that a driver should be able to anticipate the sort of conditions he will come up against. On the last evening before the Recess I left this House and found apparently good road travelling conditions as I drove out of London. Indeed, at the southern end of the motorway conditions were perfect. But by the time I had travelled about 35 miles I ran into dense fog. I could not anticipate it. I went down a slight hill and ran into fog at the bottom. It was impossible to see it.
Some form of indicator board could be erected at various points along the motorway—electrically lit and controlled—to tell drivers when they were approaching fog of ice, which is another thing that no driver can see at night, but which he is likely to come across suddenly. Such indicator boards could also tell drivers when they were likely to meet high winds which, on exposed parts of the motorway, tend to drive cars from one side of the road to the other, and could warn drivers of accidents which had occurred. Those things would make conditions on the motorway even safer than they are at present.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the difficulties experienced because of temporary hazards on the motorway. These roads must be repaired from time to time, but at present insufficient warning is given when they are being repaired. At might the driver merely sees a string of red lights in the distance, and he is not sure whether the highway is being narrowed because of repairs, or whether a string of vehicles is moving slowly along the motorway in the same direction. I suggest that it would be reasonable to give some indication of these obstructions at least a mile ahead. It would take only one minute for a car travelling at 60 m.p.h. to meet such an obstruction, and a minute is not a long period of time in which to take the necessary avoiding action.
If my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend will pay attention to some of these difficulties, what is at present a very pleasant and safe road to drive on—much safer than the normal roads that we have been used to in the past—could be made even safer and better in future.

11.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) began his speech to the House by remarking that the motorway with which we are concerned tonight, the M.1 section from St. Albans to Crick, is safer than other roads in this country. That is a remark which I certainly endorse from the figures and the information that we have.
This stretch of motorway has been open for just over two years and so far the casualty rate per vehicle mile travelled has proved to be less than half the rate on other unrestricted roads. It is also less than one-quarter of the rate averaged over all other roads, both restricted and unrestricted. There is no doubt that the motorways in Britain, and this road in particular, are proving much safer than other roads.
So far, the accident rate on M.1 has worked out at a fraction over one accident per million vehicle miles. The casualty rate for fatal accidents is working out at something like ·07 per million vehicle miles. The casualty rate for all casualties is a little higher at 1·19 per million vehicle miles. We have every reason for modest congratulation on these figures. We must, however, not be complacent. The motorways are proving extremely safe roads, but we must consider what, if anything, can be done to make them safer, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend for tonight mentioning a number of points which we might take into consideration for improving safety on the motorways.
There are two major things which could enormously increase the already good safety margin on motorways. The first is if we could get substantial improvements in the reliability of tyres and the mechanical condition of vehicles. There is evidence that far too many drivers still go on the motorways driving at high speeds in vehicles which are not suitable for the sort of treatment that they give them. Tyres are not properly inflated, they are not inflated to uniform pressures, the general condition of braking is not good and it is small wonder that vehicles break down or accidents happen. The first thing that one could say, therefore, is that before anyone goes on a motorway he should make sure that his vehicle is in good condition.
The second major thing we can do is to see that driving behaviour on the motorways improves. I believe that the greatest contribution to safety on motorways can be made by drivers themselves. The motorway is essentially a safe road. A driver on it has none of the hazards that are found on other roads. He does not have junctions, sharp curves or parked vehicles; he does not meet cyclists or straying animals. If motorists would only treat the motorway as if it were the same as other roads but with most of the hazards removed, and if they would continue to drive moderately, there need be no serious accidents.
Instead, there seems to be a tendency for people to drive competitively on the motorways, to see how fast they can drive and to make sure that they overtake the car in front. This does not, of course, apply to everybody. There are, fortunately, a very large number of sensible drivers. But it certainly would help if everyone realised that the main purpose of the motorway is to allow vehicles to maintain a high average speed without having to drive excessively fast at any stage.
A driver can cover 60 miles in the hour without going much above 60 m.p.h. at any time. A mile a minute should be good enough for almost anybody travelling on a normal journey in this country. It. should be a pleasure to drive on the motorway instead of the feeling that one sometimes gets now that it is a rat race. In brief, it is the motorist, in the last resort, who decides how safe a road is. We in the Ministry have done our part in providing in the motorways roads with high safety standards, and it is up to the motorists now to ensure that they are used in that way.
I turn, now, to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend. One of the very important points he raised was one which has received a good deal of prominence recently, namely, whether we should have crash barriers along the length of motorways, and M.1, in particular. On the present evidence, we have come to the conclusion that there is no need for this. Before one comes to a conclusion of this kind one has to get the matter into perspective. I will briefly analyse the accidents which have occurred in the past two years on this


Stretch of the M.1. There have been 940 accidents of all kinds. Only 89 of these have consisted in cars crossing the central reservation. In 13 of these 89 cases a collision took place with oncoming traffic in one of the lanes of the other carriageway. This means that in only 13 cases out of 940 did a vehicle cross the central reservation out of control and actually hit something on the other side. In only 3 of those 13 cases out of the total of 940 accidents was anyone killed.
That puts the matter in some perspective. It is important, because we know from experience in other countries where motorways have become a regular feature of motoring that, if a crash barrier is erected down the central reservation, there is a very serious risk of increasing the number of accidents. If a vehicle travelling alongside a crash barrier gets out of control and hits the crash barrier, if the barrier is strong enough it will cause the vehicle to rebound into the road. That is almost certain to cause an accident if there is any other traffic about. The vehicle itself may overturn as a result of rebounding in this way.
We have come to the conclusion that on the present evidence that we have there is no need to have a crash barrier all down the length of the motorway and that, if we did, it might well lead to far more accidents than there are at present.
I pass, next, to the point about dazzle. As my hon. Friend said, we have a stretch of experimental anti-dazzle screen over some two miles of M.1. This consists of a fence of expanded metal mesh. The two-mile stretch has been carefully chosen to cover a number of different types of conditions on the motorway. The two miles include straight and curved sections, a hill and a dip.
Some time ago the Minister of Transport set up a working party to keep motorway developments under review. The working party is, in turn, served by a traffic engineering sub-committee. The sub-committee has now conducted a good deal of work in connection with dazzle on the motorways and has now advised my right hon. Friend that there is insufficient justification for a general use of anti-dazzle screens on M.1. To

provide an anti-dazzle screen right down the motorway would be expensive. We estimate that it would cost about £300,000. It would undoubtedly have some advantages in some limited places, but the House will realise that it would prove a much less rewarding and pleasant experience to drive down the motorway in daylight if on the right-hand side as a motorist drove for mile after mile after mile he had no sight of anything, except a metal fence. One of the advantages of the motorways is that drivers and passengers get the opportunity of seeing something of the countryside which they cannot often see from the general purpose type of road. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that we cannot, and should not, provide an anti-dazzle screen of this type.
We are considering whether further experiments might be carried out to avoid dazzle at certain places, perhaps by the planting of shrubs, but here I must point out that our landscape advisory committee is against the planting of shrubs to avoid dazzle, particularly in places where the view of the countryside for people travelling in the vehicles would be seriously obstructed.
My hon. Friend mentioned, in particular, the "ghost" effect that some people claim to have seen on the motorways in the approaches to bridges. That problem is under constant observation. It is a matter to which I myself have paid some attention, and I can tell my hon. Friend that we have agreed to consider whether some special treatment could be introduced to avoid the shadow effect in the vicinity of bridges. We shall see how we get on with our experiments.
My hon. Friend also mentioned advance warnings. The highway authorities and the police already hold stocks of warning signs, which they exhibit at appropriate places if conditions on the motorway seriously deteriorate, but we are concerned now with something a little more elaborate; namely, the possibility of having illuminated signs, remotely controlled. Here, it is hoped that next winter we may be able to start an experiment to work out ways and means of doing that. If we are successful, we would hope to have


advance warning signs, remotely controlled, and illuminated, about every two miles down the motorway, with a flashing amber light adjacent to each, drawing attention to the fact that some sort of hazard, such as fog, mist, ice, or even an accident, lies ahead. We are looking into that now, and we hope to be able to do something about it.
Then there is the question of the spray thrown up from the surface of the motorway by vehicles, which temporarily blinds the vision of the drivers who follow behind. That, of course, is a constant problem on any road, particularly so where we have a number of vehicles travelling at high speed. The difficulty becomes worse where the road has deposited on it a certain amount of dirt, dust or earth, in dry weather, which turns to mud when there is heavy rain.
On the motorways, and on M.1 in particular, the problem is even more aggravated, because here we have a very wide carriageway and a very wide crossfall. In the later motorways, built after the M.1 was constructed, we have changed the design somewhat in order to ensure a more rapid fall away of water. After all, M.1 was the first motorway after the Preston by-pass, and we are making use of the lessons we have learned from it in the construction of later stretches of motorway elsewhere.
The answer to the spray problem is twofold, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me on this. First, it is for any driver travelling on a motorway, or any other road, to drive in accordance with the conditions he experiences. If he finds that he is driving on a road where spray is thrown up by other vehicles he should moderate his speed and his driving accordingly. Secondly, we now have the advantage of the rather ingenious windscreen washer which most modern motor cars have, and which every motor car can have fitted. I believe that it is by the use of windscreen washers that most benefit can be obtained, and the spray problem largely eliminated.
I should like to mention another problem to which my hon. Friend did not refer, but which has been the subject of a good deal of comment in the

Press, the technical journals and, indeed, I believe, in Questions in the House. It is the overtaking in the fast lanes by heavy lorries. The difficulty is that a large number of heavy commercial vehicles are now using the motorways, and M.1 in particular, and many of them find that to pass they may have to go into the fast lane—the third lane. If the outside lane is clear, of course, there is no reason whatever why any vehicle which wishes to overtake, and is capable of overtaking, should not use it, but there is a proviso, and that is that the driver should be satisfied before he starts the manœuvre that he can get by reasonably quickly.
What is going wrong at present is that many heavy commercial vehicle drivers are trying to pass other heavy vehicles at a speed which is only two or three miles per hour faster. As a consequence they block the lanes of the motorway over a considerable distance, and if, then, there are fast motor cars coming up behind there is the risk of a serious accident.
We are watching this particular matter very closely indeed, and I should, I think, at this stage only say that it is really not only for the drivers of the heavy lorries to watch the matter and to adjust their driving accordingly, but also for other drivers in the fast lane not to drive so fast as to be unable to deal with a situation of the kind which may confront them. If people blind along a motorway at 90 miles per hour or more, as many of them do, or try to do, frankly I think that they are going too fast. After all, the motorway is a good motor road, and is intended to be such: it is not intended to be a race track.
One has to remember, too, that although we have eliminated from the motorways many of the hazards of the all-purpose roads—as I said earlier, one does not meet cycles, one does not meet animals, one does not meet pedestrians—nevertheless on the motorway may be a mixture of motor traffic of all kinds, fast and slow. There is the small family saloon which perhaps can reach 35 miles an hour down hill with a following wind, and at the same time there is the very fast car which is capable of attaining a speed of 120 miles an hour, and it is this mixture of


motor traffic which creates that potentially dangerous situation unless drivers drive steadily at a reasonable speed and thereby achieve reasonable safety.
Moreover, if they would only drive a little more moderately in all circumstances they would, I think, treat their cars a little better than some of them do. My hon. Friend who travels on the M.1 frequently, as he told us, probably has seen a great many examples of this. J can only thank him, in conclusion,

for raising the subject tonight and giving me an opportunity of saying something about this safety problem and expressing the hope that if only drivers will use the motorway as it was meant to be used they will be much happier when driving upon it and, also, our good safety record will be greatly improved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to twelve o'clock.